Appeal No. 2003-1293 5
Application No. 09/675,739
not be taught and the article created would, in any event fall short of the invention defined
by the claimed subject matter, as the aforesaid claimed subject matter requires features that
cannot be achieved by combining the two references. Uniroyal, Inc. v. Rudkin-Wiley
Corp., 837 F.2d 1044, 1051, 5 USPQ2d 1434, 1438 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 488
U.S. 825 (1988). Accordingly, the examiner has not established a prima facie case of
obviousness.
The references to Yang and Tomar are directed to limitations found in the
dependent claims and fail to account for the deficiencies in the combination of Miller and
McClure.
DECISION
The rejection of claims 1 through 3, 5, 10 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as
being unpatentable over Miller in view of McClure is reversed.
The rejection of claims 4, 6 through 9, and 11 through 13 under 35 U.S.C.
§103(a) as being unpatentable over Miller in view of McClure and Yang is reversed.
The rejection of claim15 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over
Miller in view of McClure and Tomar is reversed.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007