Appeal No. 2002-0810
Application No. 09/014,871
Claims 1 through 3, 8 through 13, 17, 19, 20, 27 and 29
stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Faria.
Claims 6, 16, 28 and 30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Faria in view of Kudumakis.
Claims 22 through 24, 31 and 33 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Faria in view
Evangelista.
Claims 32 and 34 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Faria in view of Kudumakis and
Evangelista.
Reference is made to the brief (paper number 15) and the
answer (paper number 16) for the respective positions of the
appellants and the examiner.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the entire record before us,
and we will reverse the obviousness rejection of claims 1 through
3, 6, 8 through 13, 16, 17, 19, 20, 22 through 24 and 27 through
34.
Appellants argue (brief, page 7) that the examiner has not
established a prima facie case of obviousness of claims 1 and 12
because “there is no teaching in Faria of determination of a
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007