Appeal No. 96-1320
Application 08/081,744
part (answer, page 4). The examiner has not pointed out, and
we do not find, any teaching in Smock which remedies the
aforementioned deficiency in the disclosure of Holmes.
For the above reasons, we conclude that the examiner has
not set forth a factual basis which is sufficient to support a
conclusion of obviousness of appellants’ claimed invention.
Consequently, we do not sustain the examiner’s rejection.
DECISION
The rejection of claims 1, 2, 5-9 and 19 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Holmes taken with Smock is
reversed.
REVERSED
)
MARY F. DOWNEY )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
JOAN ELLIS )
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
)
) INTERFERENCES
)
TERRY J. OWENS )
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007