Appeal No. 1998-0490
Application 08/543,057
a sunshield simply would not have been obvious based upon the
applied art.
In summary, this panel of the board has:
reversed the rejection of claims 1 and 14 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being clearly anticipated by Moll;
reversed the rejection of claims 4, 9, and 10 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Moll; and
reversed the rejection of claims 1 through 4, 10, and 14
through 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Kim in view of Romano, but affirmed the rejection of claims 9,
12, and 13 on this same ground.
The decision of the examiner is affirmed-in-part.
No time period for taking subsequent action in connection
with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007