Appeal No. 2001-2112
Application No. 09/327,922
have made the subject matter as a whole of independent claims 1,
21 or 22 on appeal obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at
the time of appellant's invention, we must refuse to sustain the
examiner's rejection of those claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
It follows that the examiner's rejection of dependent claims 2
through 5, 7, 9 through 11, 14, 16 through 18 and 20 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on Huber in view of Powlus also will not
be sustained.
As for the examiner's rejections of claims 6 and 12 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a), we have reviewed the teachings of both Hill
and Wieber, but find nothing in those references as relied upon
by the examiner which provides for that which we have found
lacking in the basic combination of Huber and Powlus.
Accordingly, the examiner's rejections of dependent claims 6 and
12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) will not be sustained.
In light of the foregoing, the decision of the examiner is
reversed.
In addition, we REMAND this application to the examiner to
consider whether or not the subject matter defined in independent
55
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007