Appeal No. 2005-2537
Application No. 09/921,429
erroneous because it sidesteps the fact-specific analysis mandated
by § 103(a). See In re Ochiai, 71 F.3d 1565, 1571-1572, 37 USPQ2d
1127, 1132-33 (Fed. Cir. 1995).
For these reasons, Nguyen and Current do not justify the
examiner’s conclusion that the differences between the subject
matter recited in independent claims 19, 21 and 22 and the prior
art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been
obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having
ordinary skill in the art. Accordingly, we shall not sustain the
standing 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 19, 21 and 22, and
dependent claim 20, as being unpatentable over Nguyen in view of
Current.
SUMMARY
The decision of the examiner to reject claims 19-22 is
reversed.
REVERSED
JOHN P. McQUADE )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007