Appeal No. 2003-0729
Application 08/914,346
For the above reasons, the applied references fail to
establish a prima facie case of obviousness with respect to the
subject matter recited in independent claims 12 and 20 and
dependent claims 13 through 19 and 21 through 24.2 Accordingly,
we shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of
claims 12 through 24 as being unpatentable over Zhekov in view of
Seborg.
SUMMARY
The decision of the examiner to reject claims 12 through 24
is reversed.
2 This being so, we find it unnecessary to address the
materials of record (Paper No. 20) which are advanced in this
appeal by the appellants as evidence of non-obviousness (see, for
example, pages 13 and 14 in the main brief).
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007