Appeal No. 1997-3355
Application No. 08/375,456
The above analysis also applies to appellant’s claim 14, as claim 14
includes the same aspects of claim 1 which the applied art fails to teach or suggest.
Appellant has presented separate arguments with regard to claims 2, 8, and
13. Since the examiner has not established a prima facie case of obviousness with
respect to claim 1, which is broader than claims 2, 8, and 13, and upon which these
claims depend, the merits of these arguments need not be discussed. Moreover,
the reference of Jordan, studied in detail, does not cure the deficiencies of Biddle,
discussed above.
In view of the above, we reverse the examiner’s rejections of claims 1-16
under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
REVERSED
CHUNG K. PAK )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
THOMAS A. WALTZ ) APPEALS AND
Administrative Patent Judge ) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
BEVERLY A. PAWLIKOWSKI )
Administrative Patent Judge )
bap/vsh
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007