Appeal No. 2004-1153
Application No. 09/927,140
appeal obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of
appellant's invention, we must refuse to sustain the examiner's
rejection of those claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). It follows
that the examiner's rejection of dependent claims 2 through 8, 12
through 15, 17 through 22, 25, 26, 28, 29 and 31 through 34 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) on the basis of the combined teachings of
Browning and Harley will likewise not be sustained.
We have also reviewed the patents to Koon and Robinson
applied by the examiner against claims 9, 10, 11, 23 and 24 on
appeal, but find nothing therein which overcomes or provides for
the deficiencies we have identified above with regard to the
basic combination of Browning and Harley. Moreover, we agree
with appellant's assessment of the Koon and Robinson references
and appellant's commentary regarding the examiner's rejections
based on those references (brief, pages 14-17). Accordingly, the
examiner's rejections of dependent claims 9, 10, 11, 23 and 24
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) will likewise not be sustained.
77
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007