Appeal No. 2002-1906
Application 09/263,532
combination with Temple and Renaud to reject claim 2, does not
cure the above noted shortcomings of the latter two references.
Thus, the reference evidence applied by the examiner is
insufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness with
respect to the subject matter recited in claims 1 and 2.1
Accordingly, we shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
rejection of claim 1 as being unpatentable over Temple in view of
Renaud, or the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claim 2
as being unpatentable over Temple in view of Renaud and Bablick.
1 This being so, it is unnecessary to delve into the merits
of the publication evidence of non-obviousness appended to the
appellant’s main brief.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007