Ex parte GLOWNY et al. - Page 11




          Appeal No. 94-4400                                                          
          Application 07/771,063                                                      


          this distinction may seem trivial to some, it forms the crux of             
          appellants’ arguments regarding the patentability of claim 13.              
          Since the examiner again has not treated this distinction as a              
          difference between the claimed invention and the applied prior              
          art at all, we conclude that the applied prior art and the                  
          analysis provide by the examiner fail to establish a prima facie            
          case of the obviousness of claim 13.  Therefore, we do not                  
          sustain the rejection of claims 13-16.                                      
          Since claims 17-20 depend from claim 13 and include all                     
          the limitations of claim 13, the rejection as applied by the                
          examiner against these claims also fails for the same reasons               
          discussed above with respect to claim 13.  Therefore, we do not             
          sustain the rejection of claims 17-20.                                      





          In summary, we have not sustained the examiner’s                            
          rejection against any of the claims.  Accordingly, the decision             
          of the examiner rejecting claims 10-20 under 35 U.S.C.  103 is             
          reversed.                                                                   
          REVERSED                                                                    



                                          11                                          





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007