Appeal 2007-1317
Application 09/731,623
of obviousness. Accordingly, we will reverse the Examiner’s rejection of
independent claim 1 as being unpatentable over Savill in view of Wu.
Because independent claims 9 and 17 recite equivalent limitations, we
will also reverse the Examiner’s rejection of these claims as being
unpatentable over Savill in view of Wu for the same reasons discussed supra
with respect to claim 1. Because we have reversed the Examiner’s rejection
of each independent claim, we will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
any dependent claims under appeal. Therefore, we also reverse the
Examiner’s rejection of dependent claims 2-6, 8, 10-14, 16, 18-22 and 24 as
being unpatentable over Savill in view of Wu.
DECISION
In summary, we will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of any
claims under appeal. Therefore, the decision of the Examiner rejecting
claims 1-6, 8-14, 16-22, and 24 is reversed.
REVERSED
pgc
IBM CORP (YA)
C/O YEE & ASSOCIATES PC
P.O. BOX 802333
DALLAS TX 75380
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Last modified: September 9, 2013