Appeal No. 2006-2378 Page 11
Application No. 10/433,388
from claims 1-8, which includes claim 7. Claim 7 is a multiple dependent claim. Thus,
multiple dependent claims 9-11 improperly depend from multiple dependent claim 7.
On return of this application, the examiner and Appellants should take
appropriate steps to ensure that the claims comply with 37 CFR § 1.75(c).
Summary
Because the examiner did not provide a fact-based explanation as to why the
prior art would have suggested the claimed process to one of ordinary skill in the art, we
reverse the appealed obviousness rejection.
REVERSED
Donald E. Adams )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
Demetra J. Mills )
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
)
) INTERFERENCES
)
Eric Grimes )
Administrative Patent Judge )
EG/dm
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007