Appeal No. 2004-0663
Application No. 09/375,260
case of anticipation. Therefore, we cannot sustain the rejection of independent claims
1, 15, and 29 and their dependent claims.
OBVIOUSNESS
The examiner adds Boothby in combination with Mendez as evidence of the
obviousness of the dependent claims. The examiner has not identified how Boothby
remedies the deficiency in Mendez and, from those portions of Boothby cited by the
examiner, we find no teaching or suggestion of the obviousness of the claimed
invention. Therefore, we find that the examiner has not established a prima facie case
of obviousness of the invention as claimed. Therefore, we cannot sustain the rejection
of dependent claims 3-14, 17-28, and 31-42.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007