Appeal No. 2004-1856
Application No. 09/908,413
explained, Kurachi’s column 3 disclosure concerning a prior art
invention is not at all related to the subsequent disclosure
concerning his invention.
For these reasons, the examiner’s anticipation finding is
erroneous. It follows that we cannot sustain the Section
102 rejection of claims 1-4 as being anticipated by Kurachi.
The decision of the examiner is reversed.
REVERSED
)
BRADLEY R. GARRIS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
CHARLES F. WARREN )
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
)
) INTERFERENCES
)
TERRY J. OWENS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
BRG:hh
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007