Appeal No. 2003-0242 Page 5
Application No. 09/484,604
such, the scope of the claims can be ascertained with a reasonable degree of precision
and particularity.
For the reasons set forth above, the decision of the examiner to reject claims 21
to 32 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, is reversed.
The obviousness rejections
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 1 to 32 and 43 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Birang in view of Sandhu or the rejection of claims 1 to 32
and 43 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Sandhu in view of Birang.
The test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the references would
have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Young, 927 F.2d 588, 591,
18 USPQ2d 1089, 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1991) and In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208
USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981).
The teachings of the applied prior art (i.e., Birang and Sandhu) have been
adequately set forth in the brief and answer. In our opinion, the combined teachings of
the applied prior art would not have suggested the claimed subject matter. In that
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007