Appeal 2007-0904
Application 11/025,331
CONCLUSION OF LAW
On the record before us, Appellants have not shown that the Examiner
failed to establish that Katagiri anticipates claims 1, 6, 9, 16, 18, and 21
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Additionally, Appellants have not shown that the
Examiner failed to establish that Katagiri renders claims 3 through 5, 7, 19,
and 20 unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). However, Appellants have
shown that the Examiner failed to establish that the combination Okushima,
Xu and/or Cook renders claims 1, 3 through 5, 6, 7, 9 through 15, and 17
through 22 unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
DECISION
We have affirmed the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 3
through 7, 9, 16, and 18 through 21 over Katagiri. We have, however,
reversed the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 3 through 5, 6, 7, 9
through 15, and 17 through 22 over the combination of Okushima, Xu
and/or Cook.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
tl/ce
ZARLEY LAW FIRM P.L.C.
CAPITAL SQUARE
400 LOCUST, SUITE 200
DES MOINES IA 50309-2350
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Last modified: September 9, 2013