Appeal No. 1996-1456
Application No. 08/059,840
shutter as opposed to a tape cartridge of the sort disclosed by
Hitachi Maxell, it is not seen that Kato would have provided the
artisan with any suggestion to disregard Hitachi Maxell’s
strictures regarding filler to plastic percentage. Thus, the
appellants’ position that the combination of Hitachi Maxell and
Kato advanced by the examiner rests on impermissible hindsight is
persuasive. Furthermore, this flaw in the basic reference
combination finds no cure in the examiner’s application of Kita
and/or Young.
Hence, we shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
rejection of claim 1 as being unpatentable over Hitachi Maxell in
view of Kato, or the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of
claims 21 and 26 as being unpatentable over Hitachi Maxell in
view of Kato and Kita. We also shall not sustain the standing 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) of claims 2 through 4 and 7, which depend from
claim 1, as being unpatentable over Hitachi Maxell in view of
Kato, the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 8, 9
and 12 through 14, which depend from claim 1, and claims 22, 24
and 25, which depend from claim 21, as being unpatentable over
Hitachi Maxell in view of Kato and Kita, or the standing 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 10 and 11, which depend from
claim 1, and claim 23, which depends from claim 21, as being
unpatentable over Hitachi Maxell in view of Kato, Kita and Young.
II. Independent claim 15
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007