Appeal No. 2006-2677 Page 7
Application No. 10/346,099
The examiner has not set forth a prima facie case that claims 9, 21, and 31 are
anticipated by Holubka. Each of claims 10, 11, 13-18, 22-26, 28, and 32-38 depend
from one of claims 9, 21, and 31. We therefore reverse the anticipation rejection of
claims 9-11, 13-18, 21-26, 28, and 31-38.
3. Obviousness
The examiner has rejected claims 30, 40, and 41 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
obvious over Holubka. Claim 30 depends from claim 21 and claims 40 and 41 depend
from claim 31. We have already concluded that the examiner has not adequately
shown that Holubka anticipates claims 21 or 31. In addition, the examiner has not set
forth sufficient basis to conclude that the methods of claims 21 and 31 would have been
obvious over Holubka. As a result, we agree that the examiner has not set forth a prima
facie case that claims 30, 40, or 41, which depend from either claim 21 or claim 31,
would have been obvious over Holubka. We reverse the obviousness rejection of
claims 30, 40, and 41.
The examiner has rejected, under 35 U.S.C. § 103, claims 19 and 20 as obvious
over Holubka in view of Sachs2; claim 27 as obvious over Holubka in view of Widmer3;
and claims 29 and 39 as obvious over Holubka in view of Martz.4 Claims 19, 20, 27, 29,
and 39 each depend from one of claims 9, 21, and 31. We have already concluded that
the examiner has not adequately shown that claims 9, 21, or 31 are unpatentable over
Holubka. The examiner relies on Sachs, Widmer, and Martz for limitations recited in
dependent claims, and has not pointed to any disclosure in these references that would
2 Sachs et al. (Sachs), U.S. Patent No. 4,196,243, issued April 1, 1980.
3 Widmer et al. (Widmer), U.S. Patent No. 2,700,030, issued January 18, 1955.
4 Martz et al. (Martz), U.S. Patent No. 5,066,733, issued November 19, 1991.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013