Appeal No. 2006-2460 Page 10
Application No. 09/966,620
teachings of Philippo and Ylonen in an effort to create a mosaic of such prior
art to argue obviousness. Therefore, we agree with appellants that the
examiner has failed to meet his/her burden of presenting a prima facie case
of obviousness. Accordingly, we will reverse the examiner’s rejection of
representative claim 1. Because independent claims 15, 16 and 19 contain
limitations similar to claim 1, we will also reverse the examiner’s rejection of
these claims for the same reasons discussed supra with respect to
representative claim 1. Because we have reversed the examiner’s rejection
of each independent claim, we will not sustain the examiner’s rejection of
any dependent claims under appeal.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007