Appeal No. 2006-1795 7
Application No. 10/269,057
Examiner has not carried the burden of establishing a prima facie case of obviousness
with respect to the subject matter defined by the appealed claims.
Accordingly, we find that the subject matter of claims 1 and 8 would not have been
obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to
which said subject matter pertains in view of the combination of Kreager and Voller.
Thus, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 1 and 8 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a).
With regard to remaining dependent claims 2-7 and 9-16, because these claim
rejections rely upon the underlying rejection of independent claims 1 and 8 based on the
combination of Kreager and Voller, we must also reverse the examiner’s rejection of
these claims. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USQP2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (If an
independent claim is nonobvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103, then any claim dependent
therefrom is nonobvious).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007