Appeal No. 95-3566
Application No. 07/950,802
no argument upon objective evidence of nonobviousness with
respect to the rejection of claim 16.
In conclusion, based on the foregoing, the examiner's
rejec-tion of claims 1-11, 18 and 20 is reversed, whereas the
examiner's
§ 103 rejection of 16 is affirmed. Accordingly, the examiner's
decision rejecting the appealed claims is affirmed-in-part.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connec-tion with this appeal may be extended under
37 CFR § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
SHERMAN D. WINTERS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
EDWARD C. KIMLIN ) BOARD OF PATENT
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
BRADLEY R. GARRIS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
clm
Watts, Hoffman, Fisher & Heinke Co.
P.O. Box 99839
Cleveland, OH 44199-0839
-9-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007