Appeal No. 1999-0424
Application 08/298,552
in the examiner having failed to establish a prima facie case
of obviousness. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection
of independent claims 26 and 32. Since the rejection of the
independent claims is not proper, the rejection of the
dependent claims based on Prince taken alone is also not
proper. Since neither Kramer nor Suzuki overcomes the basic
deficiencies in the Prince reference, the rejection of claims
14-17 using these additional teachings is also not sustained.
In summary, we have not sustained any of the
examiner’s rejections of the claims on appeal. Therefore, the
decision of the examiner rejecting claims 2, 3, 8, 9, 11-17,
21, 23, 24, 26, 30 and 32 is reversed.
REVERSED
JERRY SMITH )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
PARSHOTAM S. LALL ) BOARD OF PATENT
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
JOSEPH L. DIXON )
-9-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007