Appeal No. 2003-1361
Application No. 09/099,758
claims 1, 6 through 13, 16 and 52 through 54 is reversed because
we additionally agree with the appellants’ argument (brief, page
15) that the teachings of Forehand, whether considered alone or
in combination with Sudo, would not have rendered obvious the
claimed invention.
The obviousness rejections of claims 2 through 5, 14 and 15
are reversed because the teachings of Patil and Hernandez fail to
cure the noted shortcoming in the teachings of Sudo and Forehand.
DECISION
The decision of the examiner rejecting claims 1 through 16
and 52 through 54 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is reversed.
REVERSED
KENNETH W. HAIRSTON )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
JERRY SMITH ) APPEALS AND
Administrative Patent Judge ) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
ROBERT NAPPI )
Administrative Patent Judge )
KWH:dal
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007