Appeal 2007-1474
Application 10/192,833
obviousness determination is based on faulty underlying findings as to the scope
and content of the prior art, and thus the Examiner has failed to present a prima
facie case of obviousness of claim 1. Accordingly, the combination of Goldman
and Johnston does not render claims 1 and 6, or their dependent claims 2, 3, 9, and
10, unpatentable.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
We conclude the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-4, 7, and 8 as
anticipated by Goldman and erred in rejecting claims 1-3, 6, 9, and 10 as obvious
in view of Goldman and Johnston.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-4, 7, and 8 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) as anticipated by Goldman and claims 1-3, 6, 9, and 10 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as obvious in view of Goldman and Johnston is reversed.
REVERSED
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013