Appeal 2007-2181
Application 10/261,862
None of Nakaishi, Shields or Seth appear to cure the deficiency in
Yamamoto's disclosure. Since the Examiner has not established that the
prior art, i.e., Nakaishi, Yamamoto, Shields and/or Seth, teach or suggest all
the limitations of claim 1, the Examiner has failed to satisfy his burden of
establishing a prima facie case of obviousness. Therefore, we reverse the
Examiner's rejections of claims 1-13 and 16-20. In re Royka, 490 F.2d at
985, 180 USPQ at 583.
CONCLUSION
In summary, the decision of the Examiner (i) to reject claims 1-3, 5-6,
8-10 and 16-19 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) as obvious over Nakaishi in view
of Yamamoto and Shields and (ii) to reject claims 4, 7, 11-13 and 20 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Nakaishi in view of Yamamoto and
Shields, as applied to claims 1-3, 5-6, 8-10 and 16-19, and further in view of
Seth is reversed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR § 1.136(a).
REVERSED
E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY
Legal Patent Records Center
Barley Mill Plaza 25/1128
4417 Lancaster Pike
Wilmington, DE 19805
mg
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Last modified: September 9, 2013