Appeal No. 2002-1519 Page 7
Application No. 09/433,344
For the reasons set forth above, the decision of the examiner to reject claims 1
and 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is reversed.
The obviousness rejection
We will not sustain the rejection of dependent claims 2 and 5 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103.
As set forth above, limitations of parent claims 1 and 4 are not taught by Starr.
Since the examiner has not set forth any rationale as to why the limitations of claims 1
and 4 not taught by Starr would have been obvious at the time the invention was made
to a person of ordinary skill in the art, the examiner has not established a prima facie
case of obviousness with respect to the subject matter of dependent claims 2 and 5.
Accordingly, the decision of the examiner to reject claims 2 and 5 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 is reversed.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007