Appeal No. 1998-1870
Application No. 08/447,063
and the respective viewpoints of appellants and the examiner. As
a consequence of our review, we make the determinations which
follow.
We sustain each of the examiner's rejections of appellants'
claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
As appreciated by appellants (main brief, page 8), each of
the examiner's obviousness rejections relies upon a common
secondary reference to Chikaishi considered with a different base
reference. Appellants' particular focus is upon the Chikaishi
teaching and why an "ordinary artisan would not have looked to
Chikaishi" (brief, page 8). More specifically, appellants'
position is that Chikaishi is non-analogous art (main brief,
pages 5 through 7 and reply brief, pages 1 through 3). As
explained below, this panel of the Board, like the examiner
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007