Appeal No. 1999-2131 Page 15
Application No. 08/971,504
do not understand why the examiner's rejection combines Drake
and Du Mond when the examiner's explanation appears to suggest
that the claimed subject matter is taught by Drake alone. It
is our opinion that the examiner has not explained what there
is in Drake or Du Mond that is suggestive of their combination
so as to yield the subject matter of claims 25-40, 49-58 and
65-74. Therefore, we will not sustain the examiner's
rejection of claims 25-40, 49-58 and 65-74 over Drake in view
of Du Mond.
For the above reasons, it is our opinion that the
examiner has failed procedurally to establish a prima facie
case of obviousness, and we will not sustain the examiner's
obviousness rejection of claims 1 through 74 on this ground.
REMAND TO THE EXAMINER
We remand this application, pursuant to 37 CFR §
1.196(e), to the examiner to consider whether any of claims 1
through 74 should be rejected in view of the following
considerations.
(1984)).
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007