Appeal No. 96-3813
Application No. 08/248,937
Furthermore, adding the cladding at the grating, as suggested
by the examiner, would be contrary to the teachings of the
references. Therefore, the examiner has again failed to
provide a prima facie case of obviousness for claims 14 and 19
and the claims dependent therefrom, 15 through 18 and 20
through 23.
CONCLUSION
The decision of the examiner rejecting claims 1, 3, and
11 through 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
REVERSED
JERRY SMITH )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
LEE E. BARRETT ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
ANITA PELLMAN GROSS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007