Appeal 2007-1651
Application 09/791,152
Examiner has not found, nor do we find that Bright makes up for the
deficiencies noted in the Examiner’s rejection of the independent claims.
Thus, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 3 through 5, 7, 14, 19
through 21, and 23, for the reasons discussed supra with respect to the
independent claims.
CONCLUSION
We consider the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1 through 31 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) to be in error, as we do not find that the combination of
applied references teaches or would have suggested the limitations in
independent claims 1, 12, 16, 17, 28, 29, and 31. On the record before us,
claims 1-31 have not been shown to be unpatentable.
ORDER
For the foregoing reasons, we will not sustain the Examiner’s
rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The decision of the Examiner is reversed.
REVERSED
tdl/gw
IBM CORP (YA)
C/O YEE & ASSOCIATES PC
P.O. BOX 802333
DALLAS, TX 75380
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6
Last modified: September 9, 2013