Appeal No. 1997-3166
Application No. 08/509,638
rejection against the claim, infra, in accordance with 37 CFR § 1.196(b).) The rejection of Claims 22-
24, dependent upon 21, is also not sustained.
Claims 17, 19, 20
The examiner has rejected Claim 17 over Oldham and Kayama, Claim 19 over Oldham and
Plus, and Claim 20 over Oldham and Ikeda. Each rejection is under 35 U.S.C. § 103 for obviousness.
(See Answer, pages 3-5.) However, the references of Kayama, Plus, and Ikeda as applied by the
examiner fail to remedy the deficiencies with respect to Claim 15, identified supra. Since Claims 17,
19, and 20 each contain at least the limitations of base Claim 15, we conclude that the examiner has
failed to set out a prima facie case for obviousness of the subject matter of the respective claims. We
therefore do not sustain the rejections of Claims 17, 19, and 20.
Claims 25-28
In the Answer, new grounds of rejection were entered against Claims 25-27 as being
anticipated by Nagayoshi. (See Answer, pages 5 and 6.) Claim 28 was rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103 as unpatentable over Nagayoshi and Plus. (Id. at page 6.)
Appellants submitted a Reply Brief, but failed to respond to the Section 103 rejection.
Accordingly, the appeal with respect to Claim 28 is dismissed. (See Answer, page 7.)
- 6 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007