Appeal No. 2002-2246
Application No. 09/192,110
CITED PRIOR ART3
As evidence of unpatentability, the Examiner relies on the following references:
Pike et al. (Pike) 5,759,926 Jun. 02, 1998
Hansen et al. (Hansen) 5,981,410 Nov. 09, 1999
The Examiner has rejected claims 1 to 20 and 43 to 46 as unpatentable under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Pike in view of Hansen.4 (Answer, p. 3).
DISCUSSION
We have carefully reviewed the claims, specification and applied prior art, including
all of the arguments advanced by both the Examiner and Appellants in support of their
respective positions. This review leads us to conclude that the Examiner’s § 103 rejection is
not well founded. Our reasons for this determination follow.
Rather than reiterate the respective positions advanced by the Examiner and
Appellants, we refer to the Examiners Answer and to Appellants’ Briefs for a complete
exposition thereof.
When determining the patentability of a claimed invention which combines known
elements, “the question is whether there is something in the prior art as a whole to suggest
3 The Examiner has cited the following U.S. patent references but has not included them
in the statement of the rejection: 6,118,041; 6,120,783; 6,120,488; and 6,142,985.
4 The Examiner has withdrawn the rejection of claims 1 to 20 and 43 to 46 under 35
U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, has been withdrawn. (Answer, p. 2).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007