Ex Parte Gillis et al - Page 6




              Appeal No. 2004-1753                                                                  Page 6                
              Application No. 09/524,086                                                                                  



              evidence is properly weighed along with the teachings of the applied prior art, we                          
              conclude that, on balance, the evidence of nonobviousness presented by appellants                           
              outweighs the evidence of obviousness presented by the examiner in the rejections                           
              before us in this appeal.  We thus reach the conclusion that it would not have been                         
              obvious at the time the invention was made to a person of ordinary skill in the art to                      
              have modified Rice, Gutierrez or Severin in the manner set forth by the examiner in the                     
              rejections under appeal. It follows that the examiner’s rejections will not be sustained.                   


                     For the reasons set forth above, the decision of the examiner to reject claims 10                    
              to 34 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.                                                                    


                                                     CONCLUSION                                                           
                     To summarize, the decision of the examiner to reject claims 10 to 34 under                           
              35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Rice in view of Christensen is reversed;                         
              the decision of the examiner to reject claims 10, 11, 13 to 32 and 34 under 35 U.S.C.                       
              § 103 as being unpatentable over Gutierrez in view of Christensen is reversed; the                          
              decision of the examiner to reject claims 17 and 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being                          
              unpatentable over either Gutierrez or Rice and Christensen and further in view of                           
              Borgman is reversed; the decision of the examiner to reject claims 20, 21, 27 and 28                        
              under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Rice and Christensen and further in                        







Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007