Appeal No. 2003-1937
Application No. 09/522,296
the art to make integral that which has heretofore been made in
separate parts, to be untenable and based entirely on speculation
and conjecture. Thus, the examiner's rejection of claims 1, 2,
3, 5 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Endo in view of Take, Helmstetter and Drajan will not be
sustained.
In light of the foregoing, the decision of the examiner to
reject claims 1 through 16, 18 through 21, 28 and 29 of the
present application under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is reversed.
In addition to the above determinations, we REMAND this
application to the examiner for a consideration of the differing
scopes of independent claims 1 and 28 on appeal, and for further
consideration of certain prior art references in the record, with
the object being for the examiner to consider whether rejections
of the claims on appeal based on such prior art references might
be appropriate.
In particular, we direct the examiner's attention to the
disclosure in Mockridge at page 1, lines 20-22 and in claims 1
and 4 thereof, which appears to describe an embodiment of the
1212
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007