Appeal No. 96-3372
Application No. 07/823,153
claim 8. Since the examiner has not demonstrated that the
specific timing recited in claim
8 is taught or suggested by the collective teachings of the
prior art, the examiner has failed to establish a prima facie
case of the obviousness of independent claim 8.
Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection of
independent claim 8. Since claims 9-18 all depend from claim
8 and include the limitations of claim 8, we also do not
sustain the rejection of these claims. Accordingly, the
decision of the examiner rejecting claims 8-18 is reversed.
REVERSED
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007