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.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007