Ex parte KHAN et al. - Page 3
Legal Research Home >
Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences > 2001 > Ex parte KHAN et al. - Page 3
Appeal No. 1999-0529
Application 08/588,800
Claims 24, 25, 2-5, 7, 9 and 13 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by the disclosure of
Martin. Claims 2-4, 9, 13, 24 and 25 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C.
§ 102(e) as being anticipated by the disclosure of Ilcisin.
Claims 6 and 10-12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over the teachings of Martin and Ilcisin.
Rather than repeat the arguments of appellants or the
examiner, we make reference to the brief and the answer for
the respective details thereof.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the subject matter on
appeal, the rejections advanced by the examiner and the
evidence of anticipation and obviousness relied upon by the
examiner as support for the rejections. We have, likewise,
reviewed and taken into consideration, in reaching our
decision, the appellants’ arguments set forth in the brief
along with the examiner’s rationale in support of the
rejections and arguments in rebuttal set forth in the
examiner’s answer.
-3-
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Last modified: November 3, 2007
|
