Appeal 2006-2155
Application 10/747,179
The Examiner, therefore, has not established a prima facie case of
anticipation of the invention claimed in the Appellant’s claim 4 or claims 5-7, 9,
12, and 13 that depend directly or indirectly therefrom.
DECISION
The rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, written
description requirement, is reversed. The rejection of under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
over McKee is affirmed as to claims 1-3, 8, 10, 11, and 14-20, and reversed as to
claims 4-7, 9, 12, and 13.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this
appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
jlb
H. Jay Spiegel
P.O. Box 11
Mount Vernon, VA 22121
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Last modified: September 9, 2013