Ex parte TANIGAWA et al. - Page 3




          Appeal No. 1999-1878                                       Page 3           
          Application No. 08/799,411                                                  


          Mantell                            3,252,940           May  24,             
          1966                                                                        
          Berardinelli et al. (Berardinelli)      3.313.767           Apr.            
          11, 1967                                                                    
          Charles et al. (Charles)                3,397,182           Aug.            
          13, 1968                                                                    
          Kakos, Jr.     (Kakos)             3,484,399           Dec. 16,             
          1969                                                                        
          Sadlowski et al. (Sadlowski)            4,431,794           Feb.            
          14, 1984                                                                    
          Paul et al. (Paul)                 4,727,106           Feb. 23,             
          1988                                                                        
          Matsumoto et al. (Matsumoto)            5,191,006           Mar.            
          02, 1993                                                                    
               Claims 1-4, 6, 7, 9 and 11-20 stand rejected under 35                  
          U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over MacDonald, Walling,                 
          Mantell, Berardinelli, Charles, Kakos, Sadlowski, Paul, and                 
          Matsumoto.          We refer to appellants’ briefs and to the               
          examiner’s answer for an exposition of the respective                       
          viewpoints expressed by appellants and the examiner concerning              
          the rejection.                                                              
                                       OPINION                                        
               Upon careful review of the entire record including the                 
          respective positions advanced by appellants and the examiner                
          with respect to the rejection before us, we find ourselves in               
          agreement with appellants’ viewpoint since the examiner has                 
          failed to carry the burden of establishing a prima facie case               








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

Last modified: November 3, 2007