Appeal No. 2003-0965
Application No. 09/030,829
References
The references relied on by the Examiner are as follows:
Culley 5,159,679 Oct. 27, 1992
Henson et al. (Henson) 5,465,343 Nov. 7, 1995
Squires et al. (Squires) 5,610,808 Mar. 11, 1997
Rejections At Issue
Claims 1, 2, and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being obvious over the combination of Squires and Culley.
Claims 3-9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
obvious over the combination of Henson and Culley.
Throughout our opinion, we make references to the
Appellants' brief, and to the Examiner's Answer for the
respective details thereof.1
OPINION
With full consideration being given to the subject matter on
appeal, the Examiner's rejections and the arguments of the
Appellants and the Examiner, for the reasons stated infra, it is
our view, after consideration of the record before us, that the
Examiner has not established a prima facie case of obviousness
with respect to claims 1-10. Accordingly, we reverse the
Examiner's rejection of claims 1-10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
1 Appellants filed an appeal brief on October 7, 2002. The
Examiner mailed out an Examiner's Answer on December 17, 2002.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007