Appeal No. 2001-0242
Application No. 09/183,114
expectation of successfully obtaining the advantages listed in
Kreckel, Korpman and Takemoto. Accordingly, we conclude that the
combined disclosures of either Koreckel or Korpman and Takemoto
would have rendered the claimed subject matter obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103.
OTHER ISSUES
Upon clarification of the subject matter recited in claims 2
through 15, the examiner is to determine whether their
patentability is affected by the combined teachings of either
Kreckel or Korpman and Takemoto.
CONCLUSION
In summary, we
1) reverse the examiner’s decision rejecting claims 2, 4 and 12
through 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the
disclosure of Kreckel;
2) reverse the examiner’s decision rejecting claim 5 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the combined disclosures of
Kreckel and Korpman;
3) reverse the examiner’s decision rejecting claims 3 and 6 through
11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the combined
disclosures of Kreckel and Takemoto;
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007