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