Ex parte JOFFE - Page 14
Legal Research Home >
Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences > 2000 > Ex parte JOFFE - Page 14
Appeal No. 1999-1779
Application No. 08/480,561
This feature clearly is not taught by Bardocz, and therefore
the
reference cannot be anticipatory of the subject matter recited
in claim 19.
The Section 102(b) rejection of claim 19 and dependent
claim 20 therefore is not sustained.
SUMMARY
The rejection of claims 1-7, 19 and 20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, first and second paragraphs, is not sustained.
The rejection of claims 1-7, 19 and 20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) is not sustained.
The decision of the examiner is reversed.
REVERSED
)
NEAL E. ABRAMS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
CHARLES E. FRANKFORT )
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
)
) INTERFERENCES
)
JEFFREY V. NASE )
Administrative Patent Judge )
14
Page: 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Last modified: November 3, 2007
|
