Appeal No. 1999-0006
Application No. 08/470,970
In view of the above discussion, it is our view that,
since all of the limitations of the appealed claims are not
taught or suggested by the prior art, the Examiner has not
established a prima facie case of obviousness. Accordingly,
the 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 rejection of independent claims 1, 7, 9, 25, and 32, as
well as claims 2-6, 8, 11-24, 26-31, and 33-40 dependent
thereon, cannot be sustained. Therefore, the decision of the
Examiner rejecting claims 1-9 and 11-40 is reversed.
REVERSED
LEE E. BARRETT )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO ) APPEALS AND
Administrative Patent Judge ) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
STUART S. LEVY )
Administrative Patent Judge )
JFR:hh
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007