Appeal No. 2002-1158
Application No. 09/052,867
claim 1. Accordingly, the rejection of claims 1-4 and 6-16 under
35 U.S.C. § 102 over Tabei is not sustained.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claim 5, we note
the Examiner’s failure to provide any teachings or suggestions in
Yamada to overcome the deficiencies of Tabei discussed above.
Based on our determination that Tabei does not teach the
invention of base claim 1, the rejection of dependent claim 5
based on Tabei and Yamada cannot be proper. Accordingly, we do
not sustain the § 103 rejection of claim 5 over Tabei and Yamada.
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007