Appeal No. 96-3053
Application 08/113,194
Although there are substantial differences between the
recitations of claims 11 and 14 and the other claims, the
examiner has relied on Hassett as “applied to claims 9 and 13" in
view of Marker, Jr. or Arnold [answer, pages 7-8]. As we noted
above, Hassett does not support the rejection of claims 9 and 13.
Since the teachings of Marker, Jr. and Arnold do not overcome the
deficiencies of Hassett as discussed above, the combined
teachings of Marker, Jr. or Arnold with Hassett also fail to
support the rejection as formulated by the examiner. Therefore,
we do not sustain the rejection of claims 11 and 14.
In conclusion, we have not sustained either of the
rejections set forth by the examiner. Accordingly, the decision
of the examiner rejecting claims 9-14 is reversed.
REVERSED
)
ERROL A. KRASS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007