Appeal No. 2002-0998
Application 09/296,139
Moreover, we fully agree with appellants’ arguments and
comments set forth in the reply brief filed June 3, 2002. The
examiner’s cursory statements and bald conclusions set forth in
what is termed the “RESPONSE TO ARGUMENT” section of the answer
clearly fail to meaningfully address the points of argument
raised by appellants in their brief.
Since it is our determination that the teachings and
suggestions found in Sabo and McGouran would not have made the
subject matter as a whole of independent claims 1 and 9 on appeal
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of
appellants’ invention, we must refuse to sustain the examiner’s
rejection of those claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). It follows
that the examiner’s rejection of dependent claims 2, 3, 5 through
7 and 10 through 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on the
combined teachings of Sabo and McGouran also will not be
sustained.
We have additionally reviewed the examiner’s rejection of
claims 8, 16 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) set forth in the
final rejection. However, we find nothing in Wagner which would
change our view as expressed above, i.e., nothing which would
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007