Appeal No. 95-1783
Application 08/069,957
which is better than that applied by the examiner. We can
say, however, that the prior art applied by the examiner does
not support the rejection formulated by him. Therefore, we do
not sustain the rejection of claims 1, 2 and 4.
Claim 3 depends from claim 1 and was rejected on the
same prior art with Stanzcyk added. Since Stanzcyk does not
overcome the deficiencies noted above in the combination of
DeMetz or Auer in view of Hendricks, we also do not sustain
the rejection of claim 3.
The decision of the examiner rejecting claims 1-4 is
reversed.
REVERSED
)
JERRY SMITH )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007