Appeal No. 1997-1201
Application No. 08/200,616
combination of the teachings into the claimed invention. Therefore, we will not sustain the
rejection of claims 1, 8 and 15. Nor will we sustain the rejection of the dependent claims
therefrom.
With respect to the rejection of dependent claims 7 and 14, Frazee does not
remedy the deficiency in the original combination of teachings by the examiner, nor has the
examiner provided a motivation for the combination of Frazee with Chemaly, Spigarelli
and Howell. Therefore, we will not sustain the rejection of claims 7 and 14.
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the decision of the examiner to reject claims 1-17 under 35 U.S.C. §
103 is reversed.
REVERSED
JAMES D. THOMAS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
KENNETH W. HAIRSTON ) BOARD OF PATENT
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
JOSEPH L. DIXON )
Administrative Patent Judge )
JLD:clm
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007