Appeal No. 1998-0538
Application 08/424,634
Nagase in view of Kakizaki.
Rather than repeat the positions of the appellant and the
examiner, reference is made to the briefs and the answer for
the respective details thereof.
OPINION
We reverse, generally for the reasons set forth by the
appellant in the brief and reply brief.
From the translation of Nagase that we have obtained, our
reading of this reference is consistent with that argued by
the appellant. It is thus apparent that from the examiner's
persistent manner in which the examiner applies Nagase to the
subject matter of independent claims 1 and 4 on appeal the
examiner has clearly misapplied the teachings and showings of
this reference to the subject matter of the claims.
In the Figures 3 and 7 showings in Nagase, the entire
carriage 11 is composed of an upper arm 13 and the head
carriage main body 12. Each of these has somehow affixed
thereto respective prior art heads shown in Figure 5 as
element 2 or the respective head construction of the patentee
shown as head 20 in Figure 1. In accordance with the claimed
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007