Appeal No. 2002-1037
Application 08/963,131
§ 103(a). In re O'Farrell, 853 F.2d 894, 903-04, 7 USPQ2d 1673,
1680-81 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
Thus, the combined teachings of Anderson and Peker do not
justify the examiner’s conclusion that the differences between
the subject matter recited in independent claims 1, 21, 24 and 28
and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole
would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a
person having ordinary skill in the art. Accordingly, we shall
not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims
1, 21, 24 and 28, and dependent claims 4 through 14, 22, 23, 25
through 27 and 29, as being unpatentable over Anderson in view of
Peker.
SUMMARY
The decision of the examiner to reject claims 1, 4 through
14 and 21 through 29 is reversed.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007