Appeal No. 1997-3416 Page 2
Application No. 08/339,340
A further understanding of the invention can be derived from a
reading of claim 16, the sole claim on appeal, which is
reproduced in an appendix to this decision.
The prior art references of record relied upon by the
examiner in rejecting the appealed claims are:
Hashimoto et al. (Hashimoto) 4,610,953 Sep.
09, 1986
Matsumoto et al. (Matsumoto) 4,762,771 Aug.
09, 1988
Philip 1,367,830 Sep. 25,
1974
Patent Specification, United Kingdom (BP '830)
Claim 16 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over BP '830 in view of Hashimoto and Matsumoto.
OPINION
We have carefully reviewed the specification, the claim,
and the respective positions presented by appellants in their
brief and the examiner in the answer thereto. In so doing, we
find ourselves in agreement with appellants' basic contention
that the applied prior art fails to establish the prima facie
obviousness of the claimed subject matter. Accordingly, we
will not sustain the examiner’s rejection for the reasons as
follows.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007