Appeal No. 1996-0729
Application No. 07/859,572
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Mitsuya, Ahluwalia, Herdewijn, Van Aerschot, Harmenberg and
applicants’ admission in view of Legrand II.
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the decision of the examiner (I) to reject claims 1, 12-14, 20 and 21 under 35
U.S.C. § 101 as lacking patentable utility is reversed, (II) to reject claim 7 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Legrand II is affirmed, (III) to reject claim 7 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Mitsuya, Ahluwalia, Herdewijn, Van Aerschot, Harmenberg and
applicants’ admission in view of Legrand II is affirmed, and (IV) to reject claims 1 and 12-14 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Mitsuya, Ahluwalia, Herdewijn, Van Aerschot,
Harmenberg and applicants’ admission in view of Legrand II is reversed.
- 12 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007