Appeal No. 2004-1450
Application No. 09/449,015
examiner has not addressed the obviousness of this difference,
the examiner has failed to establish a prima facie case of
obviousness.
With respect to the dependent claims which are rejected
using the additional teachings of Slotznick or Tomassi, the
rejection of these claims relies on the same improper combination
of Wong and Popa. Since neither Slotznick nor Tomassi overcomes
the deficiencies in the main combination of references discussed
above, we do not sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 2, 4,
5, 9, 13, 15 and 16 for the same reasons discussed above.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007