Appeal No. 97-4004
Application 08/459,417
examiner, however, has not complied with this requirement.
Accordingly, we are constrained to agree with the appellants that
the examiner has not established a prima facie case of obvious-
ness with respect to these claims.
In view of the above, we will not sustain the rejection of
claims 3, 4, 7-11, 17, 19 and 21-26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
based on the combined teachings of Clapham, Davidson and Panosh.
In summary:
The rejection of claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 15, 16, 18 and 20 is
affirmed.
The rejection of claims 3, 4, 7-11, 17, 19 and 21-26 is
reversed.
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
JAMES M. MEISTER )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
13
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007