Appeal No. 2003-0303
Application 09/096,521
Since we have determined that the teachings and
suggestions found in Nelson, Chance and the APA would not
have made the subject matter as a whole of any of claims 1,
3 through 7 and 9 through 11 on appeal obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art at the time of appellants’
invention, we must refuse to sustain the examiner’s
rejection of those claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Concerning the examiner’s rejections of claims 2,
8, 12 through 14 and 16 through 19 relying on the collective
teachings of Nelson, Madsen, Chance and the APA, we share
appellants’ view that the examiner’s further reliance on
Madsen fails to remedy the deficiencies of Nelson, Chance
and the APA as set forth above. Note particularly,
appellants’ arguments as set forth on pages 11-14 of the
brief. Thus, the examiner’s rejections of claims 2, 8, 12
through 14 and 16 through 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) will
likewise not be sustained.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007