Appeal No. 2004-0366 Page 17
Application No. 09/848,044
The obviousness rejections of claims 22 and 23
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 22 and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Mudd in view of Meuse or Luikkonen. We likewise will not
sustain the rejection of claims 22 and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Zachner in view of Meuse or Luikkonen. We will also not sustain the rejection of
claims 22 and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Ferguson in view
of Steenhoudt or Barnes, and further in view of Meuse or Luikkonen.
We have reviewed the references to Meuse and Luikkonen additionally applied
in the rejection of claims 22 and 23 (indirectly or directly dependent on claim 21) but
find nothing therein which would have made it obvious at the time the invention was
made to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified either Mudd, Zachner or
Ferguson to make up for the deficiencies of those references as discussed above
regarding claim 21. Accordingly, the decision of the examiner to reject claims 22 and
23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the decision of the examiner to reject claims 20, 22 and 23 under
35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, is affirmed; the decision of the examiner to reject
claims 1, 2, 7, 15 to 21, 24 and 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007