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