Appeal No. 2003-1690
Application 09/635,061
has not pointed out, and it is not apparent, where one of
ordinary skill in the art would have found such an indication in
Ipri.
For the above reasons we conclude that the examiner has not
carried the burden of establishing a prima facie case of
obviousness of the appellant’s claimed invention.
DECISION
The rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of claims 24 and 26
over Makita in view of Ipri, claims 25 and 27 over Makita in view
of Ipri and Nam, and claims 28 and 29 over Makita in view of Ipri
and Lee, are reversed.
REVERSED
)
TERRY J. OWENS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
JAMES T. MOORE )
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
)
) INTERFERENCES
)
LINDA R. POTEATE )
Administrative Patent Judge )
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007