Appeal No. 2002-1231
Application No. 09/328,693
blocks” as recited in the language of independent claim 1. Therefore, we find that the
examiner has not established a prima facie case of obviousness, and we cannot
sustain the rejection of independent claim 1 and its dependent claims 4 and 5.
Independent claims 6, 9 an 18 contain similar limitations which the examiner has not
shown in the prior art applied, therefore, we find that the examiner has not established
a prima facie case of obviousness, and we cannot sustain the rejection of independent
claims 6, 9 and 18 and their dependent claims 7 and 8.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007