Appeal No. 2000-2006
Application No. 09/027,173
made the subject matter as a whole of independent claim 1 on
appeal obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time
of appellants' invention, we must refuse to sustain the
examiner's rejection of that claim under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
It follows that the examiner's rejection of dependent claims 7
and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on Hansen, Tolliver and
Jones will also not be sustained.
We have also reviewed the patent to Martin and the
examiner's assertion of "obvious common knowledge" applied
against dependent claims 2 through 6 on appeal under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a). However, we find nothing in Martin or in the
"obvious common knowledge" urged by the examiner which
provides for or renders obvious the particular multi-layered
construction set forth in claim 1 on appeal which we have
already found to be lacking in the basic combination of
Hansen, Tolliver and Jones. Thus, the examiner's rejection of
dependent claims 2, 5 and 6, and the rejection of claims 3 and
4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) will likewise not be sustained.
In light of the foregoing, the decision of the examiner
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007