Appeal No. 96-2061
Application No. 08/152,080
infrared radiation as recited in appealed claim 12. Simply
stated, this is because the Arai teaching is limited to
varying the time duration of heat application rather than
controlling the intensity of any kind of application much less
the intensity of infrared radiation application as required by
the independent claim on appeal.
For the above stated reasons, we can not sustain any of
the section 103 rejections advanced by the examiner on this
appeal.
The decision of the examiner is reversed.
REVERSED
Edward C. Kimlin )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
Bradley R. Garris ) BOARD OF
PATENT
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007