Appeal No. 1999-0437
Application 08/627,249
dependent claims are patentable based on their dependence from
independent claims 1, 10 and 19. The examiner cites Sakamoto,
Bahl and Picone only to meet features recited in these
dependent claims. There is no attempt made by the examiner,
however, to indicate that these additional references overcome
the deficiency in Hollier discussed above. Therefore, the
obviousness of the difference between independent claims 1, 10
and 19 and the teachings of Hollier has never been addressed
by the examiner. Since this difference exists in the
dependent claims as well as the independent claims discussed
above, the examiner has failed to establish a prima facie case
of the obviousness of dependent claims 2-9, 11-18 and 20.
Accordingly, we do not sustain any of the examiner’s
rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
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 1-20 is reversed.
REVERSED
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007