Appeal No. 97-2028
Application No. 07/954,290
rejection of claims 42 through 116 because the examiner has not
satisfied the initial burden of showing that appellants’ claims
read on disclosures that are clearly common to both Kanbe and
appellants.
With respect to Kawakami, we agree with appellants’ argument
(Brief, page 36) that claim 45 is patentably distinguished over
this reference by reciting AC holding signals.
DECISION
The decision of the examiner rejecting claims 42 through 116
on the grounds of interference estoppel is reversed.
REVERSED
KENNETH W. HAIRSTON )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
JERRY SMITH ) APPEALS AND
Administrative Patent Judge ) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
LEE E. BARRETT )
Administrative Patent Judge )
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007