Appeal No. 97-2912
Application No. 08/291,768
render the subject matter of claim 12 obvious under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103. Although claim 12 encompasses the above-mentioned
limitations not taught by the May reference, in addition to a
dust separator, the examiner relies on the Kozmiensky
reference to show only a dust separator. See Answer, page 5.
Since the examiner has not demonstrated obviousness regarding
the above-mentioned limitations not taught by the May
reference, we also agree with appellants that the examiner has
not established a prima facie case of obviousness within the
meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103.
In view of the foregoing, we reverse the examiner’s
decision rejecting claims 6 through 15.
REVERSED
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007