Appeal No. 2006-2754
Application No. 10/108,109
deficiencies as noted in the discussion of representative claim 8
above. It is therefore our view, after consideration of the
record before us, that the evidence relied upon and the level of
skill in the particular art would not have suggested to the
ordinarily skilled artisan the invention as set forth in claims 1
through 7, 9, 10, 12 through 15. Accordingly, we will not
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 through 7, 9, 10, 12
through 15.
CONCLUSION
In view of the foregoing discussion, we have not sustained
the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 8 and 11 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102. We have also not sustained the Examiner’s decision
rejecting claims 1 through 7, 9, 10, 12 through 15 under
35 U.S.C. § 103. Therefore, we reverse.
REVERSED
15
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007