Appeal 2007-0245
Application 10/238,126
invention as recited in independent claim 12. Therefore, we cannot sustain
the rejection of independent claim 12 and its dependent claims 13-14.
35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
With respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of
independent claim 17 and dependent claim 11, 16, 18 and 19, the Examiner
has not identified how the teachings of King or Gabbe would remedy the
deficiency in Ayer. Therefore, the Examiner has not set forth a prima facie
case of obviousness, and we will not sustain the rejection of claims 11 and
16-19.
CONCLUSION
To summarize, we have not sustained the rejection of claims 1-6, 10-14,
and 16-19 under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103(a).
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013