Appeal No. 2001-1610
Application No. 09/028,449
same problem with the examiner's proposed modification of cover
surface 13, the alleged second guiding device. With no teaching
of plural guide members for each of the guiding devices, the
references clearly cannot teach or suggest the offset between the
first and second guiding devices. Therefore, the examiner has
failed to meet each and every element of and, thus, to establish
a prima facie case of obviousness for claim 16 and its
dependents, claims 17 through 25. Consequently, we cannot
sustain the rejection of claims 16 through 25.
CONCLUSION
The decision of the examiner rejecting claims 2 through 32
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
REVERSED
KENNETH W. HAIRSTON )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)) BOARD OF PATENT
ANITA PELLMAN GROSS ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
HOWARD B. BLANKENSHIP )
Administrative Patent Judge )
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007