Appeal No. 2003-0488
Application No. 09/086,286
In light of the foregoing, we shall not sustain the standing rejection of claims 1, as well as
claims 2, 6, 8, 9 and 11-17, that depend therefrom, as being unpatentable over Konzal in view of
Stahlecker.
As to the standing rejection of claims dependent 3-5 and 7 as being unpatentable further in
view of Bader, we have carefully considered the Bader reference additionally cited against these
claims, but find nothing therein that makes up for the deficiencies of Konzal and Stahlecker noted
above. Accordingly, we also shall not sustain the standing rejection of claims 3-5 and 7.
The decision of the examiner is reversed.
REVERSED
NEAL E. ABRAMS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
LAWRENCE J. STAAB ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
JENNIFER D. BAHR )
Administrative Patent Judge )
LJS/lp
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007