Appeal No. 1998-1901
Application 08/506,804
Once again, rather than burden this record, we simply
refer to appellant’s briefs. Each of the examiner’s positions
is without merit for the reasons identified and explained by
appellant. Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection of
claims 1 and 14 as anticipated by Cadet.
The rejection of claims 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 16, 17 and 19-
25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 fundamentally relies on the
examiner’s incorrect understanding of the disclosure of Cadet.
Since Cadet does not disclose that which the examiner
attributes to it, the examiner has failed to establish a prima
facie case of the obviousness of these claims. Miyatake does
not overcome the deficiencies of Cadet as applied to claims 8
and 23. Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection of these
claims under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103.
The rejection of claims 9, 10, 12 and 13 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 is based on Miyatake as the primary reference in
view of Cadet. We agree with appellant that the examiner has
provided no reasonable motivation to combine the teachings of
Miyatake with the teachings of Cadet, and the examiner has not
demonstrated how such a substitution would result in the
-8-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007