Appeal No. 1999-1058 Page 10
Application No. 08/832,960
trigger criterion, not the lock-up limit of one or more wheels
as recited in the method of claim 1.
Since all the claim limitations are not taught or
suggested by the applied prior art, the examiner has failed to
establish a prima facie case for the obviousness of claim 1
and the rejection of that claim cannot be sustained.
Claims 2 through 14 are dependent on claim 1 and contain
all of the limitations of that claim. Therefore, we will also
not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 2
through 14.
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the rejection of claims 1 through 14 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
REVERSED
LAWRENCE J. STAAB )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007