Appeal No. 1999-2143
Application No. 08/734,866
consecutive elements is smaller as the width of each said
test element becomes larger.
The examiner relies upon the following prior art references as
evidence of unpatentability:
Tanabe 3-244188 Oct. 30, 1991
(JP ‘188) (published JP
patent application)
Shigeyama et al. 4-212005 Aug. 03, 1992
(JP ‘005) (published JP
patent application)
Claims 1 through 8 on appeal stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103 as unpatentable over JP ‘188. (Examiner’s answer, pp. 3-4.)
Also, appealed claims 9 and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as unpatentable over JP ‘188 in view of JP ‘005. (Id. at pp. 4-5.)3
We reverse the aforementioned rejections. In addition, we
remand this application to the examiner for further action not
inconsistent with the opinion set forth below.
Prior to addressing the merits, we observe that the examiner
has applied JP ‘188 and JP ‘005 against the claims on appeal.
However, it appears that the examiner has relied only on the English
3 The examiner has withdrawn the rejection under 35 U.S.C. §
102(b) as set forth in the final Office action of November 20, 1997.
(Interview Summary dated August 6, 1998, paper 13.) Similarly, the
examiner has withdrawn the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112.
(Examiner’s answer, page 5.)
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007