Appeal No. 1998-1822 Page 7
Application No. 08/627,213
The examiner’s generalized assertion that it would have
been obvious to replace one technique for forming apertures
with another (answer, page 12) is simply not enough to sustain
an obviousness determination as to the specific claimed
subject matter herein based on the evidence relied upon by the
examiner. On this record, the examiner has not proffered
satisfactory supporting evidence or a convincing rationale
that specifically addresses how the applied references would
have taught or suggested the herein claimed method including
the limitations discussed above.
For the foregoing reasons, we find that the examiner has
not established a prima facie case of obviousness.
Accordingly, we reverse both § 103 rejections before us.
CONCLUSION
The decision of the examiner to reject claims 11-14 under
35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph as being indefinite for
failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the
subject matter which applicants regard as the invention, to
reject claims 1, 2 and 5-14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007