Appeal No. 2000-1901
Application 08/506,032
independent claims, what is not taught in the reference or
references relied on that is claimed, and then what is taught or
suggested with respect to each of the additional references relied
upon that is set forth in each of these independent claims. The
combinability of the references has not been stated with respect to
any feature claimed.
The examiner has essentially only set forth a broad-brush
approach to reject the claims on appeal. Stated differently, each
claim limitation of each independent claim on appeal has not been
respectively mapped to each of the reference's teachings and/or
showings in the drawings in a detailed manner. Thus, the examiner
has not fully explained the rationale for the rejection under
35 U.S.C. § 103 for each of the independent claims on appeal.
Following this approach, it is apparent to us that the examiner has
not set forth a prima facie case of obviousness for each of the
independent claims on appeal.
At page 7 of the answer the examiner makes reference to the
dependent claims indicating "they are also rejected for the same
reasons as set forth in the rejection above." There is no detailed
discussion of the features recited in each of the noted dependent
claims with respect to any of the references relied upon as a basis
to reject them. Moreover, the examiner has stated at page 8 of the
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007