Appeal No. 1996-1758
Application No. 08/358,050
In view of the above discussion, we are in agreement with
Appellant’s stated position in the Briefs that the Examiner
has failed to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. As
Appellant argues at page 11 of the Brief:
. . . the rejection is erroneously
predicated upon an identification
of different features in disparate
references, and an announcement
of the obviousness conclusion.
Accordingly, since all the limitations of the independent
claims are not suggested by the applied prior art, we cannot
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 1, 4,
10, 14, 19, and 24-29 and claims 3 and 11-13 which depend
therefrom under
35 U.S.C. § 103.
In summary, we have not sustained the Examiner’s
rejection of any of the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Therefore, the decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1, 3,
4, 10-14, 19, and 24-29 is reversed.
REVERSED
KENNETH W. HAIRSTON )
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007