Appeal No. 95-5074
Application No. 08/186,900
we agree with appellants that claim 5 is not properly rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 102.
Regarding the rejections of claims 3, 4 (dependent on
claim 2) and 6-9 (dependent on claim 5) under 35 U.S.C. § 103,
since Cheh does not remedy the aforementioned deficiency of
Burow with respect to claim 2, or alleviate the deficiency of
U.K. '897 with respect to claim 5 (the examiner does not
assert such), and the examiner does not take the position that
Burow would have rendered obvious the provision of a variable,
decreasing temperature profile, we cannot sustain these
rejections.
In conclusion, based on the foregoing, the examiner's
decision rejecting the appealed claims is reversed.
REVERSED
EDWARD C. KIMLIN )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
)
CAMERON WEIFFENBACH ) BOARD OF PATENT
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
-7-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007