Appeal No. 2006-0647
Application No. 10/069,561
record whether the Examiner ever considered an English translation of this
document, or whether it even qualifies as prior art. Upon return of this
application to the Examiner, we would urge the Examiner to evaluate the
relevance of this document to the patentability of the present invention,
especially in light of Soe’s teachings.
CONCLUSION
We conclude that the examiner has not established a prima facie case
of obviousness and the rejection of claims 34, 36-55, 57-60, and 62-74 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is reversed.
REVERSED
TONI R. SCHEINER )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
DEMETRA J. MILLS )
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
)
) INTERFERENCES
)
ERIC GRIMES )
Administrative Patent Judge )
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013