Appeal No. 1996-1088
Application 08/251,999
claims 3 and 4, and claims 7 and 8 stand or fall with claim 6
(answer, pages 8-9). Because the examiner has not established
a prima facie case of obviousness of the inventions recited in
claims 3, 4, and 6, as discussed above, and has not explained
why the inventions recited in claims 5, 7 and 8 are
unpatentable over the applied references, we reverse the
rejections of claims 5, 7 and 8.
Regarding claim 9, the examiner argues that Arai’s items
31-36 are indicators, but does not explain why an apparatus
including each of the elements recited in the claim would have
been fairly suggested, to one of ordinary skill in the art, by
the applied references. Accordingly, we reverse the rejection
of claim 9.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007