Appeal No. 2003-2137
Application No. 09/236,183
Additionally, we note that the examiner has not established
any reasoning for the proposed modification of the references,
i.e., the examiner has failed to present any motivation or
reasoning for incorporating the features of Beckenbaugh in the
testing process of Ahmad (Answer, page 4). See In re Dembiczak,
175 F.3d 994, 999, 50 USPQ2d 1614, 1617 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
For the foregoing reasons and those set forth in the Brief,
we agree with appellants that the examiner’s rejection is not
well founded. Accordingly, we reverse the examiner’s rejection of
claims 4-9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Ahmad in combination with
Beckenbaugh.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007