Appeal No. 96-4164
Application 08/467,295
bridging pages 7 and 8 of the answer, concerning the scope of
claim 14 on appeal and step e) in particular, are based on too
broad a construction of step e) when such step is properly
understood and interpreted in light of appellant’s disclosure.
The above interpretation of step e) of claim 14 on appeal is
consistent with appellant’s arguments bridging pages 12-14 of the
brief and with his position as expressed in the declaration filed
December 4, 1995.
To summarize our decision, the examiner's rejection of
claims 14, 22 and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) has been reversed.
REVERSED
IAN A. CALVERT )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
CHARLES E. FRANKFORT ) APPEALS AND
Administrative Patent Judge ) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007