Appeal No. 95-4970
Application No. 08/012,,872
be gainsaid that the entire specification of U.S. Patent No.
5,043,112 is part of the original specification of the present
application on appeal. Manifestly, the specification of an
application is not prior art to the same application. Accord-
ingly, the examiner errs in stating that the subject matter
regarding the equivalence of PPS and PEEK materials, which is
disclosed in U.S. Patent No. 5,043,112, is not disclosed in U.S.
Patent No. 5,246,647 and in the present application.
In conclusion, based on the foregoing, the examiner's
decision rejecting the appealed claims is reversed.
REVERSED
EDWARD C. KIMLIN )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
BRADLEY R. GARRIS ) BOARD OF PATENT
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
CHUNG K. PAK )
Administrative Patent Judge )
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007