Appeal No. 2001-0036
Application 08/971,611
the sides and top surfaces, we agree with appellants’ comments
on pages 3-4 of the reply brief, and observe that the examiner
has inappropriately imposed an improper standard of
patentability on appellants that is not provided for in 35
U.S.C. § 103(a).
Since it is our determination that the teachings and
suggestions found in Challande would not have made the subject
matter as a whole of independent claims 4 and 16 on appeal
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of
appellants’ invention, we must refuse to sustain the
examiner’s rejection of those claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
It follows that the examiner's rejection of dependent claims
2, 6, 7 through 10, 18 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based
on Challande alone will also not be sustained.
Regarding the examiner’s rejection of dependent claims 5,
13 through 15 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Challande in view of Bernard, we note that
even if it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007