Appeal No. 96-3781
Application No. 08/259,891
been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select the
degree of clarity for the protective layer that suits the
desired field of application.
In conclusion, based on the foregoing, the examiner's
§ 103 rejection of claim 10 is affirmed. The examiner's § 103
and § 112 rejections of claims 1-5 are reversed.
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
EDWARD C. KIMLIN )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
)
JOAN ELLIS ) BOARD OF PATENT
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
PAUL LIEBERMAN )
Administrative Patent Judge )
clm
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007