Appeal No. 96-1349
Application 08/002,168
the examiner has not relied on any teachings of the applied prior
art which would have suggested the invention as specifically set
forth in the claims on appeal, we do not sustain the rejection of
claims 1-3 and 5-9 as unpatentable over Davidson.
In conclusion, we have not sustained the rejection of
claims 1-3 and 5-9 under either 35 U.S.C. § 112 or § 103.
Therefore, the decision of the examiner rejecting claims 1-3 and
5-9 is reversed.
REVERSED
)
JAMES D. THOMAS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
JERRY SMITH )
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
)
) INTERFERENCES
)
MICHAEL R. FLEMING )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Patent Law Group
Digital Equipment Corporation
111 Powdermill Road, MS02-3/G3
Maynard, MA 01754-1499
13
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007