Appeal No. 2005-0375
Application No. 09/826,422
All claims on appeal stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103. As to
claims 1, 3, 5, 6 and 11, the examiner relies upon Heidelberg in view of
Acquaviva, with the addition of Li as to claim 4. Claims 2 and 12 stand
rejected based upon the combined teachings of Heidelberg, Acquaviva and
Hancock. Claims 13-15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious
over the collective teachings and showings of Heidelberg in view of
Acquaviva, further in view of Forbes, with the addition of Li as to claim 16.
Rather than repeat the positions of the appellants and the examiner,
reference is made to the brief and reply brief for the appellants’ positions,
and to the answer for the examiner’s positions.
OPINION
Since we cannot conclude that the artisan would have found obvious
the subject matter of independent claim 1 on appeal in light of the
teachings and showings of Heidelberg in view of Acquaviva, we reverse the
rejection of all claims on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
The examiner’s position at page 4 of the answer essentially concludes
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007