Appeal No. 2003-0295
Application 09/435,324
The examiner does not rely upon Finsterwald or Dias for any
disclosure that remedies the above-discussed deficiency in Barthe
as to the independent claims.
The examiner, therefore, has not carried the burden of
establishing a prima facie case of anticipation or obviousness of
the appellant’s claimed invention.
DECISION
The rejections of claims 33, 34, 43-45, 49, 50, 55 and 56
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Barthe, claims 39-42,
47, 48 and 51-54 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Barthe,
and claims 35-38 and 46 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over
Barthe in view of Finsterwald or Dias, are reversed.
REVERSED
)
TERRY J. OWENS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
JEFFREY T. SMITH )
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
)
) INTERFERENCES
)
BEVERLY A. PAWLIKOWSKI )
Administrative Patent Judge )
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007