Ex Parte FREEDMAN - Page 7




              Appeal No. 2001-2132                                                                       7               
              Application No. 08/985,443                                                                                 

              As to the rejection under Section 103, it is well settled that the ultimate obviousness                    
              is lack of novelty.  The claims cannot have been anticipated and not have been obvious.                    
              In re Fracalossi, 681 F.2d 792, 794, 215 USPQ 569, 571 (CCPA 1982).                                        


                                                   DECISION                                                              
              The rejection of claims 54, 55, 59, 61, 65, 73, 76, 79, 80, 82 and 83 under                                
              35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Shigemoto is affirmed.                                          
                     The rejection of claims 54 through 57, 59, 61, 64 through 69, 70,  73 through                       
              76, 79, 80, 82, 83 and 86 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over                              
              Shigemoto is affirmed.                                                                                     
                     The decision of the examiner is affirmed.                                                           
              No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may                         
              be extended under 37 CFR § 1.136(a).                                                                       
                                                                                                                        
                                                      AFFIRMED                                                           


                                                                                                                        
                                           )                                                                             
                                           BRADLEY R. GARRIS             )                                               
                   Administrative Patent Judge      )   BOARD OF PATENT                                                  
                         )           APPEALS                                                                             
                           )              AND                                                                            
                    )       INTERFERENCES                                                                                






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

Last modified: November 3, 2007