Ex Parte LIN - Page 16


                 Appeal No.  2005-0956                                                      Page 16                    
                 Application No. 09/342,866                                                                            


                    VI.    Whether the Rejection of Claim 33 Under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is                                  
                           proper?                                                                                     


                        It is our view, after consideration of the record before us, that the evidence                 
                 relied upon and the level of skill in the particular art would not have suggested to                  
                 one of ordinary skill in the art the invention as set forth in claim 33.  Accordingly,                
                 we reverse.                                                                                           
                        With respect to dependent claim 33, Appellant does not present separate                        
                 arguments and merely refers back to the arguments present above for claim 1.                          
                 Therefore, we will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 for                     
                 the same reasons as set forth above.                                                                  
                    VII.   Whether the Rejection of Claim 17 Under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is                                  
                           proper?                                                                                     


                        It is our view, after consideration of the record before us, that the evidence                 
                 relied upon and the level of skill in the particular art would not have suggested to                  
                 one of ordinary skill in the art the invention as set forth in claim 17.  Accordingly,                
                 we reverse.                                                                                           
                        With respect to dependent claim 17, Appellant does not present separate                        
                 arguments and merely refers back to the arguments present above for claim 1.                          
                 Therefore, we will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 for                     
                 the same reasons as set forth above.                                                                  







Page:  Previous  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007