Appeal No. 2006-1685
Application No. 10/081,369
We will not sustain the examiner’s rejection of these claims
for essentially the reasons argued by appellants in the briefs
and for the reasons discussed above. We agree with appellants
that Yokoi does not overcome the deficiencies in the main
combination discussed above.
With respect to the rejection of claims 20-22 based on
Cole, Tokuda, Yokoi, Hier, and Kozlowski, the examiner has
indicated how these claims are deemed to be obvious over the
applied prior art [answer, page 6]. In addition to the arguments
considered above, appellants argue that the examiner has failed
to establish a prima facie case of obviousness [brief, page 15].
The examiner disagrees with appellants’ position for reasons
discussed above [answer, pages 10-11].
We will not sustain the examiner’s rejection of these claims
for essentially the reasons argued by appellants in the briefs
and for the reasons discussed above.
In summary, we have not sustained any of the examiner’s
rejections of the claims on appeal. Therefore, the decision of
the examiner rejecting claims 1-17 and 19-24 is reversed.
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007