Appeal 2007-0229
Application 10/968,436
nonobvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103, then any claim dependent therefrom is
nonobvious).
D. Claim 7 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Lippincott in view of Davis or Hill and further in view of Jacober.
Claim 7 depends from claim 1, so the combination of Lippincott, Davis, and
Hill has the same deficiencies when applied to claim 7 as stated above. Because
Jacober does not remedy these deficiencies (Finding of Fact 8), the Examiner
failed to make out a prima facie case of obviousness as to claim 7.
E. Claims 10-12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Lippincott in view of Davis or Hill and further in view of Kirkendall.
Claims 10-12 depend from claim 1, so the combination of Lippincott, Davis,
and Hill has the same deficiencies when applied to claims 10-12 as stated above.
Because Kirkendall does not remedy these deficiencies (Finding of Fact 10), the
Examiner failed to make out a prima facie case of obviousness as to claims 10-12.
CONCLUSIONS
We conclude that Appellants have shown that the Examiner erred in
rejecting claims 1-2 and 13-14 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) and claims 1-14 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013