Appeal No. 2004-1966
Application No. 09/683,703
Thus, the fair teachings of Hanger do not warrant a
conclusion that the differences between the subject matter
recited in independent claims 1, 9 and 16 and the prior art are
such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious
at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary
skill in the art. Hence, we shall not sustain the standing 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 1, 9 and 16, and dependent
claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 10 through 12, 14, 15, 17, 18 and 20, as being
unpatentable over Hanger.
SUMMARY
The decision of the examiner to reject claims 1 through 3,
5, 6, 9 through 12, 14 through 18 and 20 is reversed.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007