Appeal No. 1997-3446
Application No. 08/373,237
claim 6 and, as indicated supra, Miwada’s drainage device is
not even in the photosensitive region at all since the
drainage device is shielded by plate 29.
Accordingly, Miwada cannot anticipate claims 6 through 8,
10 and 13.
With regard to dependent claim 9, Iizuka does not provide
for the deficiency of Miwada, noted supra, with regard to
independent claim 6. We also find no reason, within the
meaning of 35 U.S.C. 103, for the skilled artisan to have
modified Miwada, either alone, or in view of Iizuka, in order
to arrive at the instant claimed subject matter. Accordingly,
we will not sustain the rejection of claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. §
103.
The examiner’s decision rejecting claims 6 through 8, 10
and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) and claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. §
103 is reversed.
REVERSED
Errol A. Krass )
Administrative Patent Judge )
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007