Appeal No. 2002-2211
Application No. 09/304,393
why the prior art would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art the
desirability of the modification. See Fritch, 972 F.2d at 1266, 23 USPQ2d at
1783-84. The Examiner has not provided such an explanation.
CONCLUSION
The rejection of claims 1 to 6 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Fabo is affirmed. The rejection of claims 1 to 6 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Brassington is reversed.
-7-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007