Appeal 2006-3069
Application 10/661,273
DECISION
Based on the findings of facts and analysis above, we conclude that
the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1, 3-7, 9-15, and 17-22 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) for anticipation. However, we have reversed the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 3-7, and 17-22 under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph. Because we have sustained at least one rejection for each
claim on appeal, the decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1, 3-7, 9-15,
and 17-22 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED
pgc
John L. Rogitz
Rogitz & Associates
Suite 3120
750 B Street
San Diego CA 92101
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Last modified: September 9, 2013