Ex parte EGAWA et al. - Page 5




                     Appeal No. 1998-3356                                                                                                                                              
                     Application No. 08/391,472                                                                                                                                        


                                The references  relied on by the examiner are:1                                                                                                                        
                     Takahashi et al. (Takahashi)                                                          04-3308                         Jan.  8,                                    
                     1992                                                                                                                                                              
                     (published Japanese Kokai Patent Application)                                                                                                                     
                     Kyocera        2                                                           04-028010                                  Jan. 30,                                    
                     1992                                                                                                                                                              
                     (published Japanese Kokai Patent Application)                                                                                                                     

                                Claims 22 and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as                                                                                               
                     being unpatentable over Kyocera in view of Takahashi.                                                                                                             
                                Reference is made to the final rejection (paper number                                                                                                 
                     39), the briefs (paper numbers 42 and 45) and the answer                                                                                                          
                     (paper number 44) for the respective positions of the                                                                                                             
                     appellants and the examiner.                                                                                                                                      
                                                                                   OPINION                                                                                             
                                The obviousness rejection of claims 22 and 23 is                                                                                                       
                     reversed.                                                                                                                                                         
                                The examiner acknowledges (answer, pages 4 through 6)                                                                                                  
                     that the applied references do not teach that “the edges                                                                                                          

                                1 Copies of the translations of these references are                                                                                                   
                     attached.                                                                                                                                                         
                                2 The inventor of this reference is listed in the                                                                                                      
                     translation as Kazuyoshi Sakasegawa.  In order to avoid                                                                                                           
                     confusion in our decision, we will use the name Kyocera that                                                                                                      
                     was used by both appellants and the examiner.                                                                                                                     
                                                                                          5                                                                                            





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007