Appeal No. 2003-1684
Application No. 09/508,080
distribution. As stated by a predecessor of our reviewing
court, “‘[o]bviousness cannot be predicated on what is
unknown.’” In re Shetty, 566 F.2d 81, 86, 195 USPQ 753, 756-57
(CCPA 1977) (quoting In re Spormann, 363 F.2d 444, 448, 150 USPQ
449, 452 (CCPA 1966)).
The other applied prior art references have been cited for
reasons unrelated to the basic deficiency in the examiner’s
analysis. Accordingly, we see no need to discuss them.
For these reasons and those set forth in the appellants’
briefs, we reverse the examiner’s rejections under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) of: (i) claims 17 through 24 and 26 through 41 as
unpatentable over Bank in view of Sawada and Asai; and (ii)
claim 25 as unpatentable over Bank in view of Sawada and Asai,
as applied to claims 17 through 24, and further in view of
Horino.
6; reply brief filed Apr. 25, 2003, paper 30, p. 1.)
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007