Appeal No. 2002-2039 Page 15
Application No. 09/258,712
Claims 22 to 24, 26 and 27
Claims 22 to 24, 26 and 27 depend from claim 21 and are not anticipated by
Sturman for the reasons set forth above with respect to claim 21. Thus, it follows that
the decision of the examiner to reject claims 22 to 24, 26 and 27 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) is also reversed.
The obviousness rejections
We sustain both the rejection of claims 1 to 4, 6 to 10, 21 to 24, 26 and 27 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Moncelle in view of Ganser and the
rejection of claims 1, 6 to 10, 21, 26 and 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Anderson in view of Ganser.
In the obviousness rejections before us in this appeal, the examiner has set forth
a detailed explanation (answer, pp. 5-11) as to how the subject matter of the claims
under appeal would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person
of ordinary skill in the art. In these rejections, the examiner (1) determined the scope
and content of the prior art, (2) ascertained the differences between the prior art and
the claims at issue, and (3) concluded that the determined difference(s) would have
been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007