Appeal No. 2004-0045 Application No. 09/044,421 Since all of the claim limitations are not taught or suggested by the applied prior art, it is our opinion that the Examiner has not established a prima facie case of obviousness with respect to the claims on appeal. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of independent claims 1 and 9, nor of claims 2, 4-8, 10, and 12-16 dependent thereon. Therefore, the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 2, 4-10, and 12-16 is reversed. REVERSED LEE E. BARRETT ) Administrative Patent Judge ) ) ) ) ) BOARD OF PATENT JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO ) APPEALS Administrative Patent Judge ) AND ) INTERFERENCES ) ) ) STUART S. LEVY ) Administrative Patent Judge ) JFR/lp 8Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007