Appeal No. 2000-0575 Page 5
Application No. 08/599,680
Therefore, the examiner has not established a prima facie case of obviousness, and we
cannot sustain the rejection of independent claim 1 and its dependent claims 2, 4 and 21.
Similarly, independent claims 5, 19, 20, and 24-28 contain similar limitation.
Therefore, we cannot sustain the rejection of these claims and their dependent claims 6-
13, 15-18, 22, and 23.
With respect to claims 3 and 14, Cooke does not remedy the deficiency in the
combination of Darden and Harase. Therefore, we cannot sustain the rejection of these
claims.
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the decision of the examiner to reject claims 1-28 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
REVERSED
MICHAEL R. FLEMING )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
JOSEPH L. DIXON ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007