Appeal No. 96-1870
Application 08/088,570
are predicated on alleged differences between the claimed and
prior art devices which are embodied by limitations from the
appellant’s specification which are not recited in the claim
and/or by features of the prior art devices which are not
excluded by the claim. In other words, the appellant’s arguments
are not commensurate with the relatively broad scope of claim 3.
In summary, the decision of the examiner to reject claims 3
and 5 is affirmed with respect to claim 3 and reversed with
respect to claim 5.
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
WILLIAM E. LYDDANE )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
LAWRENCE J. STAAB ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
JOHN P. McQUADE )
Administrative Patent Judge )
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007