Appeal No. 2002-1035 Page 8
Application No. 09/333,166
For the foregoing reasons, we shall not sustain the examiner’s obviousness
rejections of claims 1 and 16 as unpatentable over Rosenburg in view of Kruesi and
claim 13 as unpatentable over Kruesi in view of Rosenburg. It follows that we shall also
not sustain the rejections of dependent claims 2-6 and 10 as unpatentable over
Rosenburg in view of Kruesi.
The above-noted deficiencies of the combination of Rosenburg and Kruesi find
no cure in the additional references applied by the examiner to reject the remaining
claims. Thus, we also shall not sustain the examiner’s rejections of claim 8 as
unpatentable over Rosenburg in view of Kruesi and Pearson, claim 7 as unpatentable
over Rosenburg in view of Kruesi and either Markwart or Habermehl, claim 9 as
unpatentable over Rosenburg in view of Kruesi and Gringer, claims 11 and 12 as
unpatentable over Rosenburg in view of Kruesi and Steiner and claim 14 as
unpatentable over Kruesi in view of Rosenburg and Steiner.5
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the decision of the examiner to reject claims 1-14 and 16 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed and the decision to reject claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
first paragraph, is affirmed.
5 In that the evidence adduced by the examiner is insufficient to establish a prima facie case of
obviousness of the subject matter of the appealed claims, it is unnecessary to discuss the Eggert
declaration filed by appellants.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007