Appeal 2007-1064
Application 10/059,242
Examiner has not pointed to any additional teachings or convincing rationale
in modifying the combination of Chern and Cowan with the teachings of
these references that would have overcome the deficiencies of the applied
prior art as discussed above with respect to claim 1.
CONCLUSION OF LAW
On the record before us, we find that the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 1, 3-17 is not supported by a legally sufficient basis for holding that
the claimed subject matter would have been obvious within the meaning of
§ 103(a).
Therefore, in view of our analysis above, we cannot sustain the 35
U.S.C. § 103 rejection of independent claims 1 and 13, nor of their
dependent claims 3-8 and 14-16, over Chern and Cowan. Similarly, we do
not sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 10-12 over Chern and
Cowan in combination with Dhar, nor of claims 9 and 17 over Chern and
Cowan in combination with Hoffnagle or Kathman.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013