Appeal No. 2000-0421
Application 08/912,429
arguments as to why the artisan would not have been motivated to
combine the teachings of Ho with the teachings of Pastore. None
of these arguments have been addressed by the examiner.
Therefore, the examiner has failed to establish a prima facie
case of the obviousness of the claims on appeal over the
teachings of Ho taken alone.
In summary we have sustained the examiner’s rejections of
claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 9, 10, 13 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 102, but we
have not sustained the rejection of claims 1-3, 5-7, 9-11 and 13-
15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on the teachings of Ho.
Accordingly, the decision of the examiner rejecting claims 1-3,
5-7, 9-11 and 13-15 is affirmed-in-part.
-9-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007