Appeal No. 1999-2235
Application No. 08/577,493
examiner has provided no line of reasoning why such a
relationship would have been obvious. As the examiner has not
accounted for each and every element of the claims, the
examiner has failed to establish a prima facie case of
obviousness. Consequently, we cannot sustain the rejection of
claims 1 and 14, nor of their dependents, claims 2 through 6,
8, 10, and 15 through 20.
Regarding claim 7, the examiner adds Frey to the
combination of Chapman and Hamilton. However, Frey does not
cure the above-noted deficiency of the primary combination.
Accordingly, we will not sustain the rejection of claim 7.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007