Appeal No. 95-0005
Application 08/141,412
examiner has failed to explain why the particular electronic
system claimed by the appellant would have been obvious.
The examiner has failed to set forth a reasonable case of
prima facie obviousness. The examiner’s explanations are
largely incomplete and do not focus on the specifics of what
has been claimed. Also, the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112,
sixth paragraph, have evidently been ignored. For these
reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 44-50 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Lapsley, Tolson,
and White.
Conclusion
The rejection of claims 44-50 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Lapsley, Tolson, and White is
reversed.
REVERSED
ERROL A. KRASS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
MICHAEL R. FLEMING )
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
)
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007