Appeal No. 2001-2164
Application No. 09/024,620
certain claimed elements and that Wilson teaches certain claimed
elements, with those alleged teachings apparently overlapping,
the examiner never indicates exactly what, if anything, is
missing from Singh that is taught by Wilson. More importantly,
assuming these references are to be combined, since the rejection
was based on Singh and Wilson, rather than Singh or Wilson, the
examiner never offers any motivation for combining the teachings
of these references in any manner nor does the examiner indicate
what modification is being made to Singh by Wilson or vice-versa.
Since the examiner has failed to establish a prima facie
case of obviousness with regard to the instant claimed subject
matter, we will not sustain the rejection of claims 1-20 under
35 U.S.C. § 103.
-12–
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007