Appeal No. 96-1738
Application 08/040,428
the claimed manners in which the present invention achieves
such a result are patentably distinct over Korpi alone as
urged by the appellant.
In view of the foregoing, we have reversed the examiner's
rejection of claims 1-7, 9, 10, 13, 16-20, 22-25, and 36 but
have sustained the rejection of claim 37. Accordingly, the
decision of the examiner is affirmed-in-part.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR
§ 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
James D. Thomas )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
Kenneth W. Hairston ) BOARD OF
PATENT
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007