Appeal No. 1997-3785
Application No. 08/527,591
This, of course, is not a proper basis for a rejection under
35 U.S.C. § 103. See In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1264, 23
USPQ2d 1780, 1784 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
The combined teachings of the four references thus fail
to establish a prima facie case of obviousness with regard to
the subject matter recited in independent claim 1, and we will
not sustain the rejection of claim 1 or, it follows, of claims
2-13, which depend therefrom. In view of our decision, it is
not necessary for us to consider the secondary evidence
proffered by the appellants.
SUMMARY
The rejection is not sustained.
The decision of the examiner is reversed.
REVERSED
Neal E. Abrams )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
Lawrence J. Staab ) BOARD OF
PATENT
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
) INTERFERENCES
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007