Appeal No. 96-0712 Page 8
Application No. 08/015,756
ever alleged that the examiner’s assertions in this regard are
wrong.
Accordingly, since the examiner has, in our view,
established a prima facie case of obviousness with regard to
the subject matter of independent claim 1, and claims 2 through
11 fall therewith, in accordance with appellant’s grouping of
the claims at page 3 of the brief, we will sustain the
rejection of claims 1 through 11 under 35 U.S.C. 103.
We now turn to the rejection of claims 12 and 13 under 35
U.S.C. 103 over Herbst and Chen. Again, we have reviewed the
examiner’s rationale and application of the references to the
claims, at pages 11-13 of the answer , and we find that the 3
examiner’s explanation is reasonable and presents a prima facie
case of obviousness with regard to the subject matter of claims
12 and 13. We will sustain the rejection of claims 12 and 13
under 35 U.S.C. 103.
3We note that the examiner has apparently inadvertently
stated that Chen is combined with “Gordon,” rather than
Herbst, at page 13 of the answer.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007