Appeal No. 2001-0738
Application No. 08/953,606
course, is improper. See In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266, 23
USPQ2d 1780, 1784 (Fed. Cir. 1992). This being the case, the
teachings of Ni, Wallace and Mukai fail to establish a prima
facie case of obviousness with regard to the subject matter
recited in independent claim 12 or, it follows, of claims 13-18
that depend therefrom. Accordingly, the standing
§ 103 rejection of claims 12-18 will not be sustained.
As to the § 103 rejection of claim 19, the Raidel reference
additionally applied in this rejection does not render obvious
what we have found to be lacking in Ni, Wallace and/or Mukai.
The rejection of claim 19 will therefore not be sustained.
The decision of the examiner is reversed.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007