Appeal No. 96-2391
Application 08/002,286
teachings of the admitted prior art, Larson, Buescher and Falce,
we conclude that the applied prior art would not have suggested
the invention as set forth in the claims on appeal. Accordingly,
we also do not sustain this rejection of the claims.
In conclusion, we have not sustained any of the
examiner’s rejections of the claims. Therefore, the decision of
the examiner rejecting claims 1-20 is reversed.
REVERSED
)
JAMES D. THOMAS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
KENNETH W. HAIRSTON )
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
)
) INTERFERENCES
)
JERRY SMITH )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Seidel, Gonda, Lavorgna & Monaco
Suite 1800
Two Penn Center Plaza
Philadelphia, PA 19102
14
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007