Appeal No. 1999-2698
Application 08/560,108
the prestored images of Sutherland to modify Bajura to carry
out the claimed invention.
Therefore, we find that Bajura and Sutherland are
directed to disparate teachings which address different
problems and we find no reason or suggestion in either prior
art reference to enable their combination in this obviousness
analysis.
Furthermore, there is no objective teaching in either Bajura
or Sutherland that would lead one of ordinary skill in this
art to combine the references as proposed by the Examiner.
Therefore, we will not sustain the rejection of claims 1
and 4-7, 9, 13, and 19-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Bajura and Sutherland.
In addition, we will not sustain the following
rejections:
Claims 2-3, 8 and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Bajura in view of Sutherland
and Ritchey;
Claims 10-11, 15 and 17-18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Bajura in view of
Sutherland and Ruoff;
18
Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007