Appeal No. 2003-0117
Application 09/747,077
Since we have determined that the teachings and suggestions
which would have been fairly derived from either Einstein and
Famolare or Einstein and Taylor would not have made the subject
matter as a whole of claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7 through 9, 11 through
13, 15 through 19 and 21 through 27 on appeal obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art at the time of appellant’s invention,
we must refuse to sustain the examiner’s rejection of those
claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
We have also reviewed the additional patents to Dilg and
McCord applied by the examiner against dependent claims 6, 10 and
20 on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). However, we find nothing
in these patents which overcomes the deficiencies in the basic
combinations of Einstein and Famolare or Einstein and Taylor
noted above or which otherwise renders obvious the claimed
subject matter. Thus, the examiner’s rejection of dependent
claims 6, 10 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) will likewise not be
sustained.
To summarize, we note that the examiner’s rejection of
claims 8, 9, 11, 12 and 17 through 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph, as being indefinite has not been sustained, and
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007