Appeal No. 2003-2097
Application No. 09/247,926 Page 10
Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1553, 220 USPQ 303, 312-13
(Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984).
From all of the above, we find that the examiner has failed
to establish a prima facie case of obviousness of claim 1.
Accordingly, the rejection of claim 1, and claims 2-5, 7-25 which
depend therefrom, is reversed. We likewise reverse the rejection
of independent claim 40, as claim 40 recites limitations similar
to those found in claim 1.
Turning to the rejection of claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over APA in view of Sandhu, and further in view
of Tatsumi, we reverse the rejection of claim 6 as the examiner
has not shown how Tatsumi makes up for the deficiencies of the
basic combination of APA and Sandhu.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007