Appeal No. 95-3759
Application 08/145,118
separation step could only have come from appellants' disclosure. It did not flow from the teachings
of Laing. The Ong I and Ong II references do not make up for the deficiencies of Laing.
Accordingly, the examiner’s rejections of claims 1-10 and 12-22 over Laing and the combined
teachings of Laing, Ong I and Ong II cannot be sustained.
For the aforementioned reasons, the examiner’s rejections of claims 1-10 and 12-22 are
reversed.
REVERSED
EDWARD C. KIMLIN )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
CAMERON WEIFFENBACH ) BOARD OF PATENT
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
CHARLES F. WARREN )
Administrative Patent Judge )
-8-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007