Appeal No. 2002-2341
Application 09/466,277
We have also reviewed the teachings of the additional
references to Straccia and DeWilde as applied by the examiner in
the rejection of dependent claims 42, 43, 45 and 47, however, we
again find that these references do not, in the manner set forth
by the examiner, overcome the deficiencies in the primary
combination of references to Marks, Howrilka and Watanabe. Thus,
the examiner’s rejections of dependent claims 42, 43, 45 and 47
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) also will not be sustained.
As is apparent from the foregoing, it is our determination
that the examiner has failed to establish a prima facie case of
anticipation with regard to claim 51 on appeal and also failed to
establish a prima facie case of obviousness with regard to claims
33 through 36, 42 through 47 and 52 on appeal. Thus, the
decision of the examiner to reject claim 51 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) and claims 33 through 36, 42 through 47 and 52 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is reversed.
In addition, we find it necessary to REMAND this application
to the examiner for consideration of the several issues noted
below:
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007