Appeal No. 95-2483
Application 08/098,008
We reverse the rejection of dependent claims 38, 39, 42, and
43, which respectively set forth the same subject matter but with
different dependencies. We also reverse the rejection of
dependent claim 45. With respect to each of these claims, the
examiner has provided no line of reasoning on the basis of Lai
alone and no additional prior art combined with Lai in any manner
to provide a basis to reject the specific features recited in
these enumerated claims. Therefore, the examiner has presented
no prima facie case of obviousness of the subject matter of these
respective claims. Furthermore, we can find no reasoning of our
own to advance based upon the teachings and suggestions of Lai
alone in the artisan=s view of these teachings and suggestions to
provide an independent basis for confirming the propriety of the
rejection of these noted claims.
In view of the foregoing, we have sustained the rejection of
claims 1 to 6, 11 to 15, 26 to 29, 34 to 36, 40, 41, and 44 but
have reversed the rejection of claims 38, 39, 42, 43, and 45.
Accordingly, the decision of the examiner is affirmed-in-part.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR
' 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007