Appeal No. 2005-0375
Application No. 09/826,422
minimum based on a prohibited obvious to try analysis.
Therefore, the first stated rejection of independent claim 1 and its
dependent claims 3, 5, 6 and 11 is reversed. We reach a similar conclusion
with respect to each of the other four separately stated rejections under 35
U.S.C. § 103 of the remaining claims on appeal since the additional applied
prior art is not argued and does not appear to cure the deficiencies with
respect to the combination of Heidelberg and Acquaviva.
-10-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007