Appeal No. 1998-0340
Application 08/449,682
structure by using Appellant’s invention as a blue print.
That is not permitted within the meaning of obviousness under
35 U.S.C. § 103. Therefore, we do not sustain the obviousness
rejection of claim 4 over Inaba.
In conclusion, we have sustained the rejection of claims
1-3, 5, 6, 8 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 102, while we have not
sustained the rejection of claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Accordingly, we affirm-in-part.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007