Appeal No. 2006-0635
Application No. 10/643,288
claims 1 and 17 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 independent claims 1 and 17, and dependent
claims 2-4, as being unpatentable over Kopp.
As the examiner’s application of Watkins and/or Stone does
not cure the shortcomings of Kopp relative to the subject matter
recited in parent claims 1 and 17, we also shall not sustain the
standing 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of dependent claims 5-9 and
18-20 as being unpatentable over Kopp in view of Watkins, or the
standing 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of dependent claims 10-16
as being unpatentable over Kopp in view of Watkins and Stone.
SUMMARY
The decision of the examiner to reject claims 1-20 is
reversed.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007