Appeal No. 2001-0882 Page 6
Application No. 08/950,965
With regard to the examiner’s separate § 103 rejection of
claims 8-14, the examiner has not shown how the additional
teachings of Knoss remedy the deficiencies in the teachings of
the applied Inoue patents.
Accordingly, on this record, the rejections fail for lack of
a sufficient factual basis and analysis by the examiner upon
which to reach a conclusion of obviousness. See In re Fine,
837 F.2d 1071, 1073-74, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
CONCLUSION
The decision of the examiner to reject claim 1, 2 and 15-17
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Inoue ‘029 in
view of Inoue ‘805 and to reject claims 8-14 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Inoue ‘029 in view of Inoue ‘805
and Knoss is reversed.
REVERSED
PETER F. KRATZ )
consolidation to achieve the claimed material density. The
examiner has not explained how the applied Inoue references teach
all of the claimed functions let alone suggest such a structure
or a functional equivalent thereof.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007