Appeal No. 2002-1687
Application No. 09/188,712
Rejections at Issue
Claims 1, 5, 7 through 11, 14 through 18, 20, 21, 26 through 28 and 31 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Elliott in view of Peters.
Claims 2 through 4, 12, 13 and 22 through 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Elliott in view of Peters and additionally in view of
Brockman.
Claims 6, 25, 29 and 30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Elliott in view of Peters and additionally in view of Malloy.
Throughout our opinion, we will make reference to the briefs and to the answer
for the respective details thereof.1
OPINION
With full consideration being given to the subject matter on appeal, the
Examiner’s rejections, and the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner, for the
reasons stated infra we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 through 18 and 20
through 31 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the Examiner bears the initial burden
of establishing a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443,
1 Appellants filed an appeal brief on April 20, 2001. Appellants filed a reply brief on August 3,
2001. The Examiner mailed an Office communication on September 5, 2001 stating that the reply had
been entered and considered.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007