Appeal No. 2006-0889
Application No. 10/174,918
Cheney et al. (Cheney) 5,576,765 November 19, 1996
Wasserman et al. (Wasserman) 5,774,206 June 30, 1998
Rejections At Issue
Claims 1-22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over the
combination of Cheney and Wasserman.
Throughout our opinion, we make references to the Appellants’ briefs, and to the
Examiner’s Answer for the respective details thereof.1
OPINION
With full consideration being given to the subject matter on appeal, the Examiner’s
rejections and the arguments of the Appellants and the Examiner, for the reasons stated
infra, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
We also use our authority under 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) to enter a new grounds of
rejection of claims 1-4. The basis for this is set forth in detail below.
I. Whether the Rejection of Claims 1-22 Under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is proper?
It is our view, after consideration of the record before us, that the evidence relied
upon and the level of skill in the particular art would not have suggested to one of ordinary
skill in the art the invention as set forth in claims 1-22. Accordingly, we reverse.
1 Appellants filed an appeal brief on July 11, 2005. The Examiner mailed an Examiner’s
Answer on September 16, 2005.
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007