Appeal No. 1997-2834
Application No. 08/190,729
lines 12-23, and column 4, line 65 to column 5, line 8 of
Levine ‘796 and figures 2 and 3, column 2, lines 33-43, and
column 5, lines 22-33 of Levine ‘958). Therefore, we cannot
agree with the examiner that the combined teachings of the
admitted prior art and Levine ‘796 or Levine ‘958 would have
led one of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the subject
matter of the appealed claims, absent the benefit of the
appellant’s own disclosure.
The decision of the examiner is reversed.
REVERSED
EDWARD C. KIMLIN )
Administrative Patent Judge ))))) BOARD OF PATENT
BRADLEY R. GARRIS ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
ROMULO H. DELMENDO )
Administrative Patent Judge )
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007