Appeal No. 2006-3280 Application No. 09/874,152 evidence of obviousness relied upon by the Examiner as support for the rejections. We have, likewise, reviewed and taken into consideration Appellants’ arguments set forth in the Briefs along with the Examiner’s rationale in support of the rejections and arguments in the rebuttal set forth in the Examiner’s Answer. After full consideration of the record before us, we do not agree with the Examiner that claims 1, 4 through 10, 21 through 28 are properly rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Weisser, Knoerle and Watts. We also do not agree with the Examiner that claims 11 through 20 are properly rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Weisser and Knoerle. Additionally, we do not agree with the Examiner that claims 1, 11, 21 and 28 are properly rejected under double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of Marks. Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1, 4 through 28 for the reasons set forth infra. I. Under 35 U.S.C. § 103, is the Rejection of Claims 1, 4 through 10, 21 through 28 as being unpatentable over combination of Weisser, Knoerle and Watts Proper? In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the Examiner bears the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case of been entered and considered. 5Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007