Appeal No. 2000-1835
Application No. 08/868,092 Page 9
examiner who has the burden to produce such evidence in
presenting a sustainable rejection.
Thus, we shall reverse the examiner’s § 103 rejection of
claims 17 and 19.
CONCLUSION
The decision of the examiner to reject claims 13, 20, 21 and
23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Pendleton in
view of Doty, Growald and Florio and to reject claim 18 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Pendleton in view of
Hou and Toro is affirmed.
The decision of the examiner to reject claims 14-16 and 22
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Pendleton in
view of Doty, Growald and Florio and to reject claims 17 and 19
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Pendleton in
view of Hou and Toro is reversed.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007