Appeal No. 1997-3960
Application 08/249,700
proposed by the examiner comes from appellant’s own
specification.
Since the applied prior art and the examiner’s analysis
do not establish a prima facie case of the obviousness of the
claimed invention, we do not sustain the examiner’s rejection of
claims 12 and 14 based on Motoyama and Suzuki. Therefore, the
decision of the examiner rejecting claims 12 and 14 is reversed.
REVERSED
Jerry Smith
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
Lee E. Barrett ) BOARD OF
PATENT
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
Lance Leonard Barry )
Administrative Patent Judge )
JS/cam
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007