Appeal No. 2006-2378 Page 11 Application No. 10/433,388 from claims 1-8, which includes claim 7. Claim 7 is a multiple dependent claim. Thus, multiple dependent claims 9-11 improperly depend from multiple dependent claim 7. On return of this application, the examiner and Appellants should take appropriate steps to ensure that the claims comply with 37 CFR § 1.75(c). Summary Because the examiner did not provide a fact-based explanation as to why the prior art would have suggested the claimed process to one of ordinary skill in the art, we reverse the appealed obviousness rejection. REVERSED Donald E. Adams ) Administrative Patent Judge ) ) ) ) BOARD OF PATENT Demetra J. Mills ) Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND ) ) INTERFERENCES ) Eric Grimes ) Administrative Patent Judge ) EG/dmPage: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007