Appeal No. 2001-2397 Page 10
Application No. 08/855,779
Summary
The claims, properly construed, do not read on the compositions
disclosed in the cited prior art. We therefore reverse the rejections for
anticipation. We vacate the rejection for obviousness, because the examiner has
not considered all of the limitations of the claims and shown that all of those
limitations would have been rendered obvious by the prior art. We remand the
application for further action consistent with this opinion.
REVERSED-IN-PART, VACATED-IN-PART, REMANDED
Sherman D. Winters )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
Demetra J. Mills )
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
)
) INTERFERENCES
)
Eric Grimes )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007