Appeal No. 2001-2203
Application No. 09/007,949
Examiner offers Lee in view of Wilson with respect to claims 1-9
and 14-18, and adds Yu or Mathews, in the alternative, to the
combination of Lee and Wilson with respect to claims 10-13 and
19-26.
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the
Examiner, reference is made to the Brief (Paper No. 14) and Answer
(Paper No. 15) for the respective details.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the subject matter on appeal, the
rejection advanced by the Examiner and the evidence of obviousness
relied upon by the Examiner as support for the rejection. We have,
likewise, reviewed and taken into consideration, in reaching our
decision, Appellants’ arguments set forth in the Brief along with
the Examiner’s rationale in support of the rejection and arguments
in rebuttal set forth in the Examiner’s Answer.
It is our view, after consideration of the record before us,
that the evidence relied upon and the level of skill in the
particular art would not have suggested to one of ordinary skill in
the art the obviousness of the invention as set forth in appealed
claims 1-26. Accordingly, we reverse.
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, it is
incumbent upon the Examiner to establish a factual basis to
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007