Appeal No. 1997-3480
Application No. 08/315,841
Since we agree with appellants that there is no
motivation to combine the teachings of Akamatsu with either
Uehara or Murakami, the examiner’s proposed combination of
prior art does not support the examiner’s rejection of the
claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Although some of the claims are rejected based on the
additional teachings of Erickson, we note that Erickson does
not overcome the deficiencies in the basic combination of
Uehara and Akamatsu or Murakami and Akamatsu. Therefore, the
applied prior
art fails to support the rejection of any of the claims under
35 U.S.C. § 103. Accordingly, the decision of the examiner
rejecting claims 73, 74, 76-79 and 81-97 is reversed.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007