Appeal No. 95-2580
Application 08/110,958
nothing therein which would provide that which we have
indicated above to be lacking in the basic combination of
Hansen and Rose.
As should be apparent from the foregoing, we have
affirmed the examiner’s rejection of claims 1 and 12 through
14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Hansen in
view Rose, but we have reversed the examiner’s rejections of
claims 2, 3, 5 through 7, 9, 10 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
The decision of the examiner is, accordingly, affirmed-in-
part.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
con- nection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR §
1.136(a).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
12
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007