Appeal No. 19987-3176 Page 6
Application No. 08/388,788
suggested an apparatus comprising a mandrel having two surfaces
suitable for diamond deposition as herein claimed. In a rejection
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), it is basic that all limitations
recited in a claim must be considered and given appropriate
effect in judging the patentability of that claim against the
prior art. See In re Geerdes, 491 F.2d 1260, 1262-63, 180 USPQ
789, 791 (CCPA 1974). This, the examiner has failed to do.
Consequently, we shall reverse all of the examiner’s stated §
103(a) rejections for failure to make out a prima facie case of
obviousness for substantially the reasons as set forth in the
briefs.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007