Appeal No. 1998-2443
Application No. 08/704,956
resonance, it would appear, as indicated by appellant at page 7 of the brief, that Skrgatic
may be trying to avoid the vibrations sought by appellant. We agree with appellant’s
analysis in this regard, because we have no evidence to the contrary, and, thus, we do not
find that Skrgatic adds anything to the disclosure of Oshima in this regard.
Accordingly, the examiner’s decision rejecting claim 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is
reversed.
REVERSED
ERROL A. KRASS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
LEE E. BARRETT ) APPEALS AND
Administrative Patent Judge ) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
ANITA PELLMAN GROSS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
eak/vsh
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007