Appeal No. 2001-1637
Application No. 08/800,052
These flaws in the basic reference combinations proposed
by the examiner find no cure in the additional citations to
Jentzen, Andresen, Lyman and Fischer. We are therefore
constrained to conclude that the evidence proffered by the
examiner does not justify a conclusion that the differences
between the subject matter recited in independent claims 1, 10
and 15, and dependent claims 5 through 9, 12 through 14, 16
through 20 and 22 through 27, and the prior art are such that
the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the
time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill
in the art.
Accordingly, we shall not sustain any of the examiner’s
35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections.
SUMMARY
The decision of the examiner to reject claims 1, 5
through 20 and 22 through 27 is reversed.
REVERSED
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007