Appeal No. 2005-1577
Application No. 09/581,159 Page 4
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Winter in view of
Koontz, Tweadey and Goerenz. Claims 11-17 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Winter in view of
Tweadey. Claims 21 and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Winter in view of Shukuri and
Marquardt.
We refer to appellants’ briefs and to the examiner’s answer
for an exposition of the respective viewpoints expressed by
appellants and the examiner concerning the rejections.
OPINION
Upon careful review of the entire record including the
respective positions advanced by appellants and the examiner with
respect to the rejections before us, we find ourselves in
agreement with appellants’ viewpoint since the examiner has
failed to carry the burden of establishing that the herein
claimed subject matter would have been obvious within the meaning
of 35 U.S.C. § 103 on this record. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d
1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992); In re
Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1471-1472, 223 USPQ 785, 787-788 (Fed.
Cir. 1984). Accordingly, we will not sustain the examiner’s
rejections.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007