Appeal No. 1997-1190
Application No. 08/427,972
prior art, we will not sustain the rejection of those claims
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Bseisu in view of Jeter and
Chevalier.
The Rejection of Claims 7 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Bseisu in view of Engebretson
The examiner cites Engebretson as evidence that a
magnetic field sensor was well known in the art. Since
Engebretson does not cure the deficiency in Bseisu noted
supra., we will not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103
rejection of dependent claims 7 and 13.
In summary and for the above reasons, the decision of the
examiner:
to reject claims 1 through 11, 13, 14 and 16 through 29
under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, is reversed;
to reject claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 9 and 10 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Bseisu is reversed;
to reject claims 3, 6, 8, 11, 14 and 16 through 29 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Bseisu in view of
Jeter in combination with Chevalier is reversed; and
-17-
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007