Appeal No. 2004-1023 Page 6
Application No. 09/393,714
overcome by further consideration of Hermann. Moreover, as was the case with this
limitation in the claim in the rejection under Section 102, the examiner has failed to point
out where Williams, or Hermann, for that matter, render that step obvious. We note
here that no separate discussion utilizing Siemens was provided by the examiner.
It therefore is our conclusion that the combined teachings of Williams and either
of Hermann or Siemens fail to establish a prima facie case of obviousness with regard
to the subject matter recited in claim 18, which by virtue of dependency is incorporated
in each of claims 20-26, and therefore this rejection cannot be sustained.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007