Appeal No. 2004-2044
Application No. 09/476,708
B) Reeder is Non-Analogous Prior Art
With respect to independent claim 69, Appellants argue at
page 19 of the brief, "[t]he Reeder reference is non-analogous
art." We do not find Appellants' argument persuasive for the
reason noted above with respect to claim 59.
C) Motivation or Suggestion to combine
With respect to independent claim 69, Appellants argue at
page 19 of the brief that there is no motivation or suggestion to
combine the references. We do not find Appellants' argument
persuasive for the reason noted above with respect to claim 59.
Therefore, for the reason discussed at A) above, the
Examiner has not met the initial burden of establishing a prima
facie case of obviousness and we will not sustain the Examiner's
rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
VI. Whether the Rejection of Claim 70 Under 35 U.S.C. § 103
is proper?
It is our view, after consideration of the record before us,
that the evidence relied upon and the level of skill in the
particular art would not have suggested to one of ordinary skill
in the art the invention as set forth in claim 70. Accordingly,
we reverse.
With respect to dependent claim 70, we note that the
Examiner has relied on admitted prior art solely to teach "a
14
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007