Appeal 2007-0816
Application 11/095,887
belt” in claim 1. The Examiner does not point to, and we do not see,
anything in McQuade that remedies this deficiency.
“[O]bviousness requires a suggestion of all limitations in a claim.”
CFMT, Inc. v. Yieldup Intern. Corp., 349 F.3d 1333, 1342, 68 USPQ2d
1940, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Because the combination of references
asserted by the Examiner fails to teach or suggest all of the claim limitations,
we reverse the obviousness rejection of claim 2.
SUMMARY
We reverse the anticipation rejection of claims 1 and 3, and the
obviousness rejection of claim 2.
REVERSED
lbg
ZARLEY LAW FIRM P.L.C.
CAPITAL SQUARE
400 LOCUST, SUITE 200
DES MOINES IA 50309-2350
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6
Last modified: September 9, 2013