Appeal No. 2006-2220
Application No. 09/813,348
Appellants (brief, page 8) that the absence of the specific parts
of the claimed process steps in the reference indicates that the
combination of Kaneyuki and Glennon cannot support a prima facie
case of obviousness. Accordingly, we do not sustain the 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 rejection of claims 1, 3, 7, 8 and 9 over Kaneyuki and
Glennon.
With respect to the rejection of the remaining claims, we
note that the Examiner relies on Taniguchi ‘484 and Taniguchi ‘559
for additional features claimed in the other dependent claims.
However, the Examiner has not pointed to any convincing rationale
in modifying Kaneyuki and Glennon with the teachings of Taniguchi
references that would have overcome the deficiencies of the applied
prior art as discussed above with respect to claims 1, 3 and 7-9.
Accordingly, the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 2, 4-6 and 10
over Kaneyuki and Glennon in combination with Taniguchi ‘484 or
‘559 cannot be sustained.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007