Appeal No. 2002-1106
Application 09/058,687
The examiner indicates how he finds the claimed invention
to be obvious [answer, page 4]. Appellants argue that the
combination of George and Alford fails to teach all the elements
of the claimed invention. Appellants also argue that there is no
motivation to combine the teachings of George and Alford in the
manner proposed by the examiner [brief, pages 10-14]. The
examiner disagrees with these arguments [answer, page 6].
We will not sustain this rejection for the reasons
discussed above. The examiner’s findings with respect to George
are incorrect for reasons noted above. The teachings of Alford
do not overcome the deficiencies in George. Since George does
not support the examiner’s position, the examiner’s rejection
fails to establish a prima facie case of obviousness.
In summary, we have not sustained either of the examiner’s
rejections of the claims on appeal. Therefore, the decision of
the examiner rejecting claims 1-4, 9 and 14 is reversed.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007