Appeal No. 2000-1335
Application 09/131,930
the subject matter recited in claim 1. Hence, we shall not3
sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claim 1,
or of dependent claims 2, 5 through 13, 17, 18 and 20, as
being unpatentable over Nomura in view of Obosu.
Inasmuch as Modine, Swan, Dauvergne and Yasuda do not
cure the foregoing flaw in the basic Nomura-Obosu combination,
we also shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
rejection of dependent claim 4 as being unpatentable over
Nomura in view of Obosu and Modine, of dependent claims 13 and
14 as being unpatentable over Nomura in view of Obosu and
Swan, of dependent claim 15 as being unpatentable over Nomura
in view of Obosu and Dauvergne, or of dependent claim 16 as
being unpatentable over Nomura in view of Obosu and Yasuda.
SUMMARY
The decision of the examiner to reject claims 1, 2, 4
through 18 and 20 is reversed.
REVERSED
3This being so, there is no need to delve into the merits of the appellant’s
evidence of non-obviousness.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007