Appeal No. 2006-2832
Application No. 09/833,953
Opinion
With full consideration being given to the subject matter on appeal, the
Examiner’s rejections and the arguments of the Appellant and the Examiner, for
the reasons stated infra, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 and 3 to
12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), and we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 14,
15, 17 to 23 under the same statute.
Whether the Rejection of Claims 1, 3 to 12, 14, 15, and 17 to 23 Under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is proper?
It is 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
one of ordinary skill in the art the invention as set forth in claims 1 and 3 to 12.
Accordingly, we reverse.
Consider claim 1 as exemplary of this group of claims. Arguments over
limitations in the dependent claims have not been presented, and will not be
discussed.
In this analysis, we will review first the elements of the claim, and then the
arguments concerning motivation to combine the teachings of the references.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013