Appeal No. 95-3565
Application 08/053,814
Examiner’s Answer at 6. This is insufficient for stating a prima
facie case. Moreover, it appears that the examiner’s rejection
is based on the position, rejected above, that appellants are not
entitled to claim a multiresonant (multiple frequency) device.
Because the examiner has not demonstrated how each
element of a claim is found in a single prior art reference, we
will not sustain the rejection.
CONCLUSION
The rejections of claims 1-7, 10, 11, and 19-28 are not
sustained.
REVERSED
KENNETH W. HAIRSTON )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
MICHAEL R. FLEMING ) BOARD OF PATENT
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
JAMES T. CARMICHAEL )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Steven E. Kahm
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007