Appeal No. 2005-0090 Application No. 10/057,025 structure as taught by Ramaswami. Therefore, we find that the examiner has not established a prima facie case of obviousness of the invention as recited in independent claim 11. Therefore, we cannot sustain the rejection of independent claim 11 and in its dependent claims 12-20. CONCLUSION To summarize, the decision of the examiner to reject claims 11-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed. REVERSED KENNETH W. HAIRSTON ) Administrative Patent Judge ) ) ) ) ) BOARD OF PATENT JOSEPH L. DIXON ) APPEALS Administrative Patent Judge ) AND ) INTERFERENCES ) ) ) ANITA PELLMAN GROSS ) Administrative Patent Judge ) JD/RWK 9Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007