Appeal No. 2001-0299 14
Application No. 08/993,861
how the claims might be amended to overcome the prior art rejections which we have
not reversed (i.e., the rejections of claims 1, 2, 7, 8, 11, 12, 14 and 15 as being
anticipated by Koch and of claims 1 and 12 as being anticipated by Angel). However,
we do not find any such recommendation appropriate in this case and thus decline to
do so.
CONCLUSION
It should be apparent from the foregoing discussion that appellants’ request for
rehearing has persuaded us of no error in our earlier decision to affirm the rejections of
claims 1, 2, 7, 8, 11, 12, 14 and 15 as being anticipated by Koch and of claims 1 and 12
as being anticipated by Angel. In light of the argument in appellants’ request with
respect to the rejection of claims 7, 8, 9 and 14 as being anticipated by Dooley,
however, we have changed our affirmance of that rejection to a reversal of that
rejection.
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007