Appeal No. 97-2145
Application 08/566,120
rela- tionship between the opaque outline 3 and the etching 9 of
Col- bert would clearly not be understood by one of ordinary
skill in this art as denoting designs in “registry” with one
another, as claimed. On this basis, we conclude that the only
document relied upon by the examiner for establishing
anticipation and obviousness fails to teach and would not have
been suggestive of the invention now claimed.
In summary, this panel of the board has:
reversed the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Colbert, and
reversed the rejection of claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Colbert.
The decision of the examiner is reversed.
REVERSED
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007