Appeal No. 95-0900
Application 07/947,117
11 cure the deficiencies noted above in the Hannen, Matuda and
Kistner references.
For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the subject
matter of claims 6, 7, 10 and 12 would not have been prima facie
obvious based on the teachings of Hannen, Matuda and Kistner.
Similarly, we conclude that the subject matter of claim 9 and
claims 8 and 11 would not have been prima facie obvious based on
the teachings of Hannen, Matuda, Kistner and Trouteaud or
Uchimura and Heitmann, respectively. Accordingly, the examiner’s
rejection of these claims is reversed.
REVERSED
)
EDWARD C. KIMLIN )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
BRADLEY R. GARRIS )
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
)
) INTERFERENCES
)
THOMAS WALTZ )
Administrative Patent Judge )
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007