Appeal No. 96-1726
Application 08/146,498
For the above reason, we cannot support the rejection of appel-
lant’s claims 1 and 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 and the dependent
claims which stand therewith. The Krzewinski reference does not
overcome the deficiency in the evidence of obviousness discussed
above.
In summary, this panel of the board has:
reversed the rejection of claims 1 through 3, 7, 8, 10,
and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Tames in
view of Holt and Schwarze; and
reversed the rejection of claims 4 through 6, 9, and 10
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Tames in view of
Holt, Schwarze, and Krzewinski.
The decision of the examiner is reversed.
REVERSED
IRWIN CHARLES COHEN )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
NEAL E. ABRAMS ) APPEALS AND
Administrative Patent Judge ) INTERFERENCES
)
)
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007