Appeal No. 95-4269
Application 08/123,700
recited in claims 14 and 15 would not have been obvious over
Katsanis in view of Muller or Miller, respectively.
Conclusion
The examiner’s decision to reject claims 11 to 13, 16 to 18
and 24 to 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is affirmed, and to reject
claims 14 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connec-
tion with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
IAN A. CALVERT )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
WILLIAM F. PATE, III ) BOARD OF PATENT
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
JOHN C. MARTIN )
Administrative Patent Judge )
-8-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007