Appeal No. 2006-0509 5
Application No. 09/425,088
the applied prior art cannot serve as the basis of a finding of obviousness. Only the
objective teachings of the prior art or knowledge generally available to one of ordinary
skill in the art can be used by the examiner in an obviousness determination. See In re
Lee, 277 F.3d 1338, 1344, 61 USPQ2d 1430, 1434 (Fed. Cir. 2002). In summary, the
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 1 through 5, 7 through 10 and 12 through 14 is
reversed because a prima facie case of obviousness has not been established by the
examiner.
The 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 11 and 15 is reversed because the
teachings of Ball do not cure the noted shortcomings in the teachings of Somers and
Tunnicliffe.
The 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 16 and 17 is reversed because the
teachings of Aronberg and Knight do not cure the noted shortcomings in the teachings
of Somers and Tunnicliffe.
DECISION
The decision of the examiner rejecting claims 1 through 5 and 7 through 17
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is reversed.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007