Appeal No. 1997-0328 Page 4
Application No. 08/094,072
Claims 8-27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being1
unpatentable over Roselle in view of Hughes.
OPINION
We have carefully reviewed the respective positions
presented by appellants and the examiner. In so doing, we
find ourselves in agreement with appellants that the applied
prior art fails to establish a prima facie case of obviousness
of the claimed subject matter. Accordingly, we will not
sustain the examiner's rejection for essentially those reasons
1The examiner lists claims 8 through 18 as rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Roselle in view of
Hughes and separately refers to the rejection of claims 8
through 27 as presented in the prior office action paper No.
11 (answer, page 2). The only rejection present in the final
rejection (paper No. 11) is a 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of
claims 8 through 27 as being unpatentable over Roselle in view
of Hughes with reasoning that appears substantially the same
as that presented for the stated rejection of claims 8 through
18 at pages 2-6 of the answer. The answer (page 6) indicates
that no new ground of rejection is present and neither of the
two apparent separately stated rejections have been so
identified. The brief addresses the single ground of
rejection set forth in the final rejection. In view of the
above, we regard the two apparently separately stated
rejections in the answer to be the result of a reproduction
error and consider the present appeal as involving only a
single ground of rejection of all of appealed claims 8 through
27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Roselle in
view of Hughes.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007