Appeal No. 1997-2857
Application 08/171,175
disclosure of Fincher, the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)
rejection of independent claim 1 can not be sustained.
Turning to a consideration of the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. §
103 rejections of claim 2 as unpatentable over Fincher in view
of QIC and claims 3-5 as unpatentable over Fincher in view of
Dujari, we do not sustain these rejection as well. Each of
claims 2-5 are ultimately dependent on claim 1, the
limitations of which are not disclosed by Fincher as we
determined in our discussion supra. Further, our review of
the disclosures of QIC and Dujari reveals nothing which would
overcome the innate deficiencies of Fincher. Accordingly,
since the Examiner has failed to establish a prima facie case
of obviousness, we do not sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103
rejection of appealed claims 2-5.
In conclusion, we have not sustained any of the
Examiner’s rejections of the claims on appeal. Accordingly,
the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-5 is reversed.
REVERSED
15
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007