Appeal No. 2005-1729 Παγε 9
Application No. 09/921,762
APA or the APA in view of Wise, taken further in view of Elvin-Jensen, we have considered
the prior art as applied to these dependent claims, but find nothing therein to make up for
or otherwise overcome the fundamental flaws in the APA and Apps pointed out above. In
that regard, we refer to appellants’ brief (pages 16-20) and reply brief for further reasoning
as to why these claims would not have been obvious within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. §
103.
In light of the foregoing, the decision of the examiner rejecting claims 1 through 15 and
25 through 47 of the present application under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is reversed.
REVERSED
CHARLES E. FRANKFORT )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
JOHN P. McQUADE ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
JEFFREY V. NASE )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007