Appeal No. 1999-2458 Page 7
Application No. 08/851,693
claim 1. In light of the foregoing, the decision of the
examiner to reject claim 1, as well as claims 2 to 4 and 6 to
10 dependent thereon, under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is reversed.
The obviousness rejection
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 5 and 17 to
20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
As set forth above, all the limitations of claim 1 are
not taught by Huang. We have reviewed the additional applied
prior art to Burnham but find nothing therein which would have
made it obvious at the time the invention was made to a person
having ordinary skill in the art to have arrived at the
claimed invention as set forth in claim 1. Specifically, the
applied prior art does not teach or suggest "the substantially
no gap clause" of claim 1. Accordingly, the decision of the
examiner to reject dependent claims 5 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. §
103 is reversed.
With regard to independent claim 18, we agree with the
appellant's argument (brief, p. 7) that the applied prior art
to Huang and Burnham would not have made it obvious at the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007