Appeal No. 2003-0994
Application No. 08/579,544
rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for the same reasons as set
forth above.
IV. Whether the Rejection of Claims 22, 44, and 58 Under
35 U.S.C. § 103 is proper?
It is our view, after consideration of the record before us,
that the evidence relied upon and the level of skill in the
particular art would not have suggested to one of ordinary skill
in the art the obviousness of the invention as set forth in
claims 22, 44, and 58. Accordingly, we reverse.
With respect to claim 22, we note that the Examiner has
relied on the Baradel reference solely to teach, "an object
management system" [answer, page 8]. The Baradel reference in
combination with the Travis and Huang fails to cure the
deficiencies of Travis and Huang noted above with respect to
claim 16. Therefore, we will not sustain the Examiner's
rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for the same reasons as set
forth above.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007