Appeal No. 2001-0313
Application 09/033,874
rejection based on obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. In this
case, we agree with appellants that the reference to Arnhold
fails to teach or suggest the methods as set forth in claims 28,
32, 40 and 45 on appeal and that the examiner has provided no
evidence whatsoever that such methods, and that of claim 48 on
appeal, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
art at the time of appellants’ invention.
It follows from the foregoing that the examiner's rejection
of claims 28, 32, 40, 45 and 48, as well as all of the claims
which depend therefrom, under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Arnhold will not be sustained.
The next rejection for our review is that of independent
claims 26 and 34, as well as all of the claims which depend
therefrom, under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Arnhold in view of EP ‘698. In this instance, we agree with
appellants’ assertions on pages 22 and 23 of their brief, and for
those reasons will not sustain the examiner’s rejection of these
appealed claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on Arnhold and EP
‘698.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007