Appeal No. 94-2232
Application 07/888,367
I and Lee II publications raises the presumption that Lee is
a coinventor of the subject matter appellants claimed.
Accordingly, we reverse the examiner’s rejections of Claims
7-11 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(f) and under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in
view of subject matter the examiner deemed to be prior art
under
35 U.S.C. § 102(f).
4. Conclusion
We vacate the examiner’s rejection of Claims 8, 10(8),
and 11(8) under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in view of the combined
teachings of Walujono, Broekaert, Weissman and White.
We reverse the examiner’s rejection of Claims 7 and 9(7)
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in view of the combined teachings of
Walujono, Broekaert, Weissman and White.
We reverse the examiner’s rejection of Claims 7-11 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(f).
We reverse the examiner’s rejection of Claims 7-11 under
21
Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007