Appeal No. 2002-1954
Application No. 09/458,926
As Baum does not cure this evidentiary deficiency in
Bohannan, we shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
rejection of claim 35, which depends from claim 30, as being
unpatentable over Bohannan in view of Baum.
III. Remand to the examiner
The application is remanded to the examiner to consider
whether Bohannan, which as explained above does not meet the
relatively narrow fiber angle ranges set forth in independent
claims 1, 12, 23 and 29, nevertheless would have rendered such
ranges prima facie obvious within the context of the claimed
subject matter, and, if so, whether Bohannan constitutes an
appropriate starting point for 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections of
claims 1, 12, 23 and 29, and any of their dependent claims. In
making these determinations, the examiner may wish to refer to
MPEP § 2144.05 for a discussion of the obviousness of ranges.
SUMMARY
The decision of the examiner to reject claims 1 through 36
is reversed and the application is remanded to the examiner for
further consideration.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007