Appeal No. 2001-1000
Application No. 08/835,404
find that the examiner has not established a prima facie case of obviousness of the
claimed invention, and appellant has shown error therein. Therefore, we will not sustain
the rejection of independent claim 1 and its dependent claims 2-9 and 13-18 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a). Similarly, we will not sustain the rejection of independent claim 19 and
its dependent claims 20-22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Moreover, we find that the
teachings of Radigan do not remedy the deficiency in the base combination, and we will
not sustain the rejection of dependent claims 10-12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007