Appeal No. 96-2817
Application 08/082,549
In light of the foregoing, we must conclude that Jodock
does not disclose, either expressly or under principles of inher-
ency, each and every element of the claimed invention. For this
reason we will not sustain the examiner's rejection of appealed
claims 1, 2, 4 through 6, 8, 10, 11, 14 and 16 through 19 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
With respect to the examiner's rejection of claims 7
and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on Jodock and Maier, we find
nothing in Maier which supplies the deficiency noted above with
regard to Jodock. Accordingly, it follows that the examiner's
rejection of dependent claims 7 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is
also not sustained.
The decision of the examiner is reversed.
REVERSED
HARRISON E. McCANDLISH )
Senior Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007