Appeal No. 1998-1782 Page 9
Application No. 08/472,332
In applying this definition to the teachings of Eskilson,
we conclude that Eskilson's reflector 12 does not incorporate
"information" since it does not incorporate any identifying
marks.
Since all the limitations of claims 1 through 14 and 19
through 21 are not found in Eskilson, the decision of the
examiner to reject claims 1 through 14 and 19 through 21 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is reversed.
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the decision of the examiner to reject
claims 4 through 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph,
is affirmed; the decision of the examiner to reject claims 1
and 2 under the judicially created doctrine of double
patenting is affirmed; and the decision of the examiner to
reject claims 1 through 14 and 19 through 21 under 35 U.S.C. §
102(b) is reversed.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007