Appeal No. 1999-0008
Application No. 08/625,834
insulate loading mechanism 7 from vibrations to casing 3 (column
3 lines 17-27). However, neither Miyamoto nor Odawara, alone or
in combination, have shown the recited structure of the first
chassis and the second chassis in the casing. Therefore, we are
of the opinion that the examiner has not made out a prima facie
case of rejecting claims 13 and 16 to 18 over Miyamoto and
Odawara.
Aizawa and Odawara
The examiner rejects claims 13 and 16-18 under this
combination at pages 5 to 7 of the examiner’s answer.
Appellants argue, brief at pages 7 and 8, that this combination
suffers from the same deficiencies as noted above regarding the
combination of Miyamoto and Odawara. For the same rationale as
above, we agree with appellants that the examiner has not
established a prima facie case of obviousness in rejecting these
claims. Therefore, we do not sustain the obviousness rejection
of claims 13 and 16-18 under this combination.
In conclusion, the decision of the examiner rejecting
claims 13 and 16-18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007