Appeal No. 2006-0848
Application No. 09/981,231
claims rejected on Salter and Abe appears to only address the features of claim 39.
Therefore, the examiner has failed to establish a prima case of obviousness of claim 44.
Claims 45, 50, 52 and 54-56
Since these claims depend from claim 44, we do not sustain the examiner’s rejection
of these claims for the same reasons discussed above with respect to claim 44.
We now consider the rejection of claim 51 based on Salter, Abe and Douthit. Since
claim 51 depends from claim 44, and since the examiner never established a prima
facie case of the obviousness of claim 44, we do not sustain the examiner’s rejection of
claim 51.
We now consider the rejection of claim 53 based on Salter, Abe and Barnes. Since
claim 53 depends from claim 44, and since the examiner never established a prima
facie case of the obviousness of claim 44, we do not sustain the examiner’s rejection of
claim 53.
We now consider the rejection of claim 57 based on Abe and Ferguson. The
examiner has indicated how the claimed invention is rendered obvious by the collective
teachings of Abe and Ferguson [answer, page 10]. Appellant argues that the rejection
18
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007