Appeal No. 2003-1315
Application No. 09/503,838
Claims 1 through 4, 13, 14 and 16 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Aeba in view of
Olowolafe.
Claims 5 and 6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Aeba in view of Olowolafe and admitted
prior art.
Claims 7 through 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Aeba in view of Olowolafe and
the IBM TDB.
Claims 11, 12 and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Aeba in view of Olowolafe and
Akram.
Reference is made to the briefs (paper numbers 13 and 15)
and the answer (paper number 14) for the respective positions of
the appellant and the examiner.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the entire record before us,
and we will reverse the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims
1 through 14, 16 and 17.
The examiner states (answer, page 4) that “Aeba (US
5,466,956) discloses a method of making and testing a
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007