Appeal No. 2004-2292
Application 09/747,537
and argument for nonobviousness and conclude that the claimed invention encompassed
by appealed claims 1 through 7, 9 10, 12 through 30, 33, 35, 37 and 38, which are all of
the appealed claims, would have been obvious as a matter of law under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a).
In summary, I agree with the affirmance by the majority of this panel of the
grounds of rejection based on the combined teachings of Schloegl and Keller and of
Peiffer and Keller, and disagree with the affirmance by the majority of this panel of the
grounds of rejection based on the combined teachings of Schloegl and Blemberg and of
Peiffer and Blemberg as applied by the examiner. However, I suggest that any further
prosecution of the appealed claims before the examiner include consideration of the
combined teachings of Schloegl and Blemberg and the combined teachings of Peiffer and
Blemberg in the manner that I have set forth above (see pp. 26-28).
Accordingly, since I concur in the affirmance by the majority of this panel of
grounds of rejection involving all appealed claims, I concur with the decision of the
majority of this panel to affirm the decision of the examiner.
CHARLES F. WARREN ) BOARD OF PATENT
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
) INTERFERENCES
33
Page: Previous 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007