Appeal No. 2002-2329 Page 7
Application No. 09/647,815
of obvious “design choice” by one of ordinary skill in the art. Be that as it may, the
addition of “design choice” with regard to the selection of temperature values does not
overcome the problem discussed above in the context of the rejection of claim 1
regarding the teachings that can be attributed to Cullen and Takeshima. The rejection
of claim 5 is not sustained.
For the same reason, we will not sustain the rejection of claims 7 and 8, both of
which depend from claim 1, as being unpatentable over Cullen, Takeshima, and the
obvious “design choice” of selecting the specific values for 81 and 82 that are set forth in
these claims.
The addition of Deeba to Cullen, Takeshima and Sultan in rejecting dependent
claim 9 does not alter our conclusion that Cullen and Takeshima do not render claim 1
obvious, and we will not sustain this rejection.
Nor will we sustain the rejection of dependent claims 11 and 12 on the basis of
the references applied against claim 1 taken further with Nakase, which does not
alleviate the problem with the two main references.
CONCLUSION
None of the rejections are sustained.
The decision of the examiner is reversed.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007