Appeal No. 1996-3675
Application No. 08/259,933
As we discussed above, all of the examiner’s rejections
rely on the combination of Watanabe and Monter. Because the
combination of Watanabe and Monter is not tenable, we agree
with the appellant that one of ordinary skill in the art would
not have found the subject matter of the appealed claims to be
obvious over the applied prior art references within the
meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103.
For these reasons, we reverse the examiner’s (1)
rejection of claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over the combined teachings of Watanabe and Monter, (2)
rejection of claims 1, 2, 8, and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over the combined teachings of Watanabe, Monter,
Kuo, and Miles, and (3) the rejection of claim 15 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the combined teachings of
Staerzl, Watanabe, Monter, Kuo, and Miles.
The decision of the examiner is reversed.
REVERSED
JOHN D. SMITH )
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007