Appeal No. 1999-2230
Application 08/465,236
F.2d 67, 70, 205 USPQ 594, 596 (CCPA 1980); and In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255,
195 USPQ 430, 433-34 (CCPA 1977). See the Examiner’s Answer, page 5, lines 14-18.
In view of the numerical limiations on size and size distribution recited in all of the
appealed claims, we disagree that the combined disclosures of Sands, Erbel, and
Mathiowitz would have led a person having ordinary skill in the art to the claimed invention.
The examiner’s decision, rejecting claims 22 through 60 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, is
reversed.
REVERSED
)
Sherman D. Winters )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
Demetra J. Mills )
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
)
) INTERFERENCES
)
Eric Grimes )
Administrative Patent Judge )
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007