Appeal No. 2000-0464
Application No. 09/023,198
1260, 1265-1266 n.12, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1783 n.12 (Fed. Cir.
1992). Therefore, as we cannot accept the examiner's proposed
modification of Glomb, the examiner again has failed to
establish a prima facie case of obviousness. Accordingly, we
cannot sustain the obviousness rejection of claims 1 through 8
over Glomb alone.
CONCLUSION
The decision of the examiner rejecting claims 1 through 8
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
REVERSED
KENNETH W. HAIRSTON )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
JOSEPH L. DIXON ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007