Appeal No. 1998-1962 Page 14
Application No. 08/213,933
The reference to Monoson
We have also reviewed the Monoson reference cited by the 4
examiner but find nothing therein which makes up for the5
deficiencies of Perry discussed above regarding claims 1, 7
and 13.
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the decision of the examiner to reject
claims 1 through 10 and 12 through 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is
reversed.
REVERSED
CHARLES E. FRANKFORT )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
JOHN P. McQUADE ) APPEALS
4U.S. Patent No. 5,076,079 issued December 31, 1991.
5The examiner applied both Perry and Monoson in the two
rejections set forth on pages 3-4 of the answer. However, as
noted in footnote 2 above, stated that Perry is "being used
singularly." Accordingly, we treated the rejection of the
claims under appeal as being based on 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Perry alone.
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007