Appeal No. 1998-1329
Application 08/642,595
layer cover and a telephone handset cover with a groove
projection, respectively, we find nothing in the disclosure of
either
reference which would overcome the innate deficiencies of Lo
discussed, supra.
Since all of the claim limitations are not taught or
suggested by the applied prior art, it is our opinion that the
Examiner has not established a prima facie case of obviousness
with respect to the claims on appeal. Accordingly, we do not
sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of
independent claims 1 and 21, nor of claims 2 and 4-10
dependent thereon.
Therefore, the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 2, 4-
10, and 21 is reversed.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007