Appeal No. 2002-1205 Application No. 09/422,380 The examiner has not explained why, in view of this contrast, Yamanaka supports the examiner’s theory of inherency. The examiner also does not explain how Akashi cures this deficiency in Yamanaka. In view of the above, we therefore reverse the 35 U.S.C. § 103 of rejection of claims 1 and 2. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR § 1.136(a). AFFIRMED-IN-PART TERRY J. OWENS ) Administrative Patent Judge ) ) ) )BOARD OF PATENT ) APPEALS AND THOMAS A. WALTZ ) INTERFERENCES Administrative Patent Judge ) ) ) ) ) ) BEVERLY A. PAWLIKOWSKI ) Administrative Patent Judge ) BAP/sld 5Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007