Appeal 2007-0719
Application 09/731,205
Further, Appellants have not shown that the Examiner failed to establish that
one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the present invention, would
have concluded that Sorkin in combination with Irie and Suzuki renders the
claims 13 through 15 unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 17 and 18 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Sorkin
and Irie. However, we affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1
through 12 and 16, 19 through 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Sorkin and Irie. We also affirm the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 13 through 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over the combination of Sorkin, Irie and Suzuki.
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
KIS
ALBERT P. SHARPE, L.L.L.
FAY, SHARPE, FAGAN, MINNICH & MCKEE, L.L.P.
7TH FLOOR
1100 SUPERIOR AVENUE
CLEVELAND, OH 44114
15
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Last modified: September 9, 2013