Appeal No. 2002-1257
Application No. 08/913,523
In view of the above discussion, since all of the claim
limitations are not present in the disclosure of Holland, we do
not sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of
independent claim 11.
Turning to a consideration of the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) rejection of dependent claims 12, 13, 15, 18, and
19 based on the combination of Holland with the Baker and
Applegate references, we do not sustain this rejection as well.
For all of the reasons discussed supra, the Examiner has failed
to establish a prima facie case of obviousness since we find no
teaching or suggestion in either of the applied secondary
references that would overcome the innate deficiencies of
Holland.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007