Appeal No. 95-1645
Application No. 07/866,780
inherently teaches such a two temperature process. The
examiner has not established that Hardwick teaches both steps,
nor that Hardwick suggests the claimed combination of two
heating steps each at a different temperature and designed for
a different effect. Thus, we fail to find a prima facie
case of obviousness and reverse this rejection.
CONCLUSION
The decision of the examiner refusing to allow claims 1-9
and 11-21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR
§ 1.136(a).
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007