Appeal No. 2001-0595
Application No. 09/079,293
Since, for the reasons stated above, we decline to accord
the preamble of claim 1 on appeal and the printed matter in
paragraph four of claim 1 any patentable weight, it follows
that we will sustain the examiner's rejection of independent
claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. In accordance with appellant's
grouping of the claims (brief, page 3), dependent claims 2
through 5 fall with claim 1.
As for method claim 6, we view this claim in a different
light. The method recited is said to provide tangible
evidence of intercessory prayers pledges on behalf of a
recipient and sets forth steps which clearly accomplish that
end result. Like appellant, we see nothing in Callahan or
Stevens that relates in any way whatsoever to a method like
that claimed by appellant. Moreover, in reviewing the final
rejection and examiner's answer, we see no statements or
comments from the examiner as to why or how the combined
teachings in Callahan and Stevens render obvious appellant's
claimed method. Since we have determined that the examiner
has not established a prima facie case of obviousness
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007