Appeal No. 2003-0291 Page 7
Application No. 09/569,074
were to be replace with another form of attachment such as that taught by Hasegawa
does not in and of itself make the claimed subject matter obvious at the time the
invention was made to a person of ordinary skill in the art from the teachings of
Hasegawa. As set forth previously, it is the examiner's burden under 35 U.S.C. § 103
to present evidence establishing why it would have been obvious at the time the
invention was made to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the primary
reference (i.e., Hasegawa) to arrive at the claimed invention.
For the reasons set forth above, the decision of the examiner to reject claims 1
to 4 and 7 to 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Hasegawa is
reversed.
We have also reviewed the references to Kitta and Pandey additionally applied
in the rejection of claims 5, 10, 11, 16 and 17 but find nothing therein which makes up
for the deficiencies of Hasegawa discussed above. Accordingly, (1) the decision of the
examiner to reject claims 5 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Hasegawa in view of Kitta is reversed; and (2) the decision of the examiner to reject
claims 10, 16 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Hasegawa in
view of Pandey is reversed.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007