Appeal No. 2006-2539 Page 10
Application No. 10/421,661
The examiner also rejected claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious based on
Andre, Chi, and Hartitz.8 Examiner’s Answer, page 9. This rejection relies on the same
reasoning as the rejection of claim 1, and cites Hartitz only for the additional limitation
recited in claim 8. Since Andre and Chi do not teach or suggest all of the limitations of
claim 1 and the examiner has pointed to nothing in Hartitz to remedy the deficiency
discussed above, this rejection must be reversed for the same reason.
Finally, the examiner rejected claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious based
on “LaVon et al[.]/Andre in view of Chi, further in view of Krebs.”9 Examiner’s Answer,
page 7. Since neither LaVon nor the combination of Andre and Chi support a prima
facie case with respect to claim 1, and the examiner has not pointed to anything in
Krebs that would make up for the deficiencies discussed above, this rejection is also
reversed for the same reasons that the rejections based on LaVon or on the
combination of Andre and Chi are reversed.
8 Hartitz, U.S. Patent 4,115,495, issued Sept. 19, 1978
9 Krebs et al., U.S. Patent 6,465,104, issued October 15, 2002
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007