Ex parte JONES - Page 4

          Appeal No. 95-4926                                                          
          Application No. 08/101,495                                                  


          own disclosure rather than some teaching, suggestion or incentive           
          derived from the applied prior art.  It follows that we cannot              
          sustain the § 103 rejection of claims 8 through 14 as being                 
          unpatentable over Weder in view of Neiner and further in view of            
          Broussard, Sieveking, Marhevka, Brink and Usala.                            
               The decision of the examiner is reversed.                              



                                      REVERSED                                        




                         JOHN D. SMITH            )                                   
                         Administrative Patent Judge)                                 
                                                  )                                   
                                                  )                                   
                                                  )                                   
                         BRADLEY R. GARRIS        )  BOARD OF PATENT                  
                         Administrative Patent Judge)    APPEALS AND                  
                                                  )   INTERFERENCES                   
                                                  )                                   
                                                  )                                   
                         CHUNG K. PAK             )                                   
                         Administrative Patent Judge)                                 







                                          4                                           





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  Next 

Last modified: November  3, 2007