Appeal No. 2002-1289
Application No. 08/972,219
manager objects as disclosed by Daly. However, we are left to speculate as to how
such a combination might be suggested by the objective teachings of the applied
references, since the position taken in the responsive arguments section of the Answer
appears to be inconsistent with the statement of the rejection.
We are thus in ultimate agreement with appellants. The evidence relied upon
fails to establish a case for prima facie unpatentability of the claimed subject matter as
a whole of instant claim 1. Since Mayo, Dev, and Wanderer as applied against the
subject matter of the dependent claims fails to remedy the basic deficiency in the
rejection against base claim 1, we do not sustain any of the section 103 rejections.
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007