Appeal No. 2006-0688
Application No. 09/838,425
respond that the examiner is relying on broad generalizations rather than finding the
specific recitations of the claimed invention [reply brief, pages 10-12].
We will not sustain the examiner’s rejection of the claims based on Kelly and
Deitel. We agree with appellants that the examiner’s rejection is based on broad
generalizations of what is obvious and substantially ignores the specific recitations of
the claims. We can find nothing in the portions of the applied references cited by the
examiner that relate to the claimed invention. The examiner has failed to establish a
prima facie case of obviousness because the examiner has broadly dismissed the
specific recitations of the claimed invention as being obvious without any supporting
evidence.
In summary, we have not sustained any of the examiner’s rejections of the claims
on appeal. Therefore, the decision of the examiner rejecting claims 1-7 is reversed.
REVERSED
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007