Appeal No. 2001-2209
Application No. 09/019,158
We have also reviewed the disclosure of Fukuda applied by the Examiner to address the lead
structure
limitations of dependent claim 18. We find nothing, however, in the disclosure of Fukuda which
would overcome the deficiencies of the admitted prior art and Suehiro discussed supra.
In view of the above discussion, it is our view that, since all of the limitations of the
appealed claims are not taught or suggested by the applied prior art references, the Examiner has not
established a prima facie case of obviousness. Accordingly, the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of
independent claim 14, as well as claims 17-19 dependent thereon, is not sustained.
In conclusion, we have not sustained the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of any of
the claims on appeal. Therefore, the decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 14 and 17-19 is
reversed.
REVERSED
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007