Appeal No. 96-3998
Application No. 08/344,397
Since, for all of the reasons discussed above, we are of
the view that the prior art applied by the Examiner does not
support the rejection, we do not sustain the rejection of
independent claim 16. Therefore, we also do not sustain the
rejection of dependent claims 18, 20-24, and 28.
In conclusion, we have not sustained the Examiner’s
rejection of any of the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Accordingly, the decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 16,
18, 20-24, and 28 is reversed.
REVERSED
KENNETH W. HAIRSTON )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
JERRY SMITH ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO )
Administrative Patent Judge )
jrg
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007