Appeal No. 97-3561
Application No. 08/352,190
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Weverka, Kiasaleh
or Lipsky in view of Shaw. Weverka, Kiasaleh and Lipsky are
relied on in the same manner as in the rejection under Section
102. For reasons discussed above, the examiner’s findings as
to what is disclosed by these references is incorrect. Shaw
does not overcome the deficiencies in each of the primary
references. There are differences between the claimed
invention and the applied prior art which have not been
addressed by the examiner. Therefore, the examiner has failed
to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. Accordingly,
we do not sustain the examiner’s rejection of these claims.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007