Appeal No. 98-2792
Application 08/516,257
teachings of the Meadows article applied in appellant’s co-
pending application No. 08/714,830 (Appeal No. 99-0446) and
Komives (Figure 3), or based on Schultz (Figures 5a, 5b) in
view of Komives (Figure 3). In particular, we point to our
affirmance of the § 103 rejection in appellant’s co-pending
application (Appeal No. 99-0446) based on the Meadows article
and Komives.
In view of the foregoing, the examiner's decision
rejecting claims 15 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Schultz has been affirmed, but the decision
rejecting claims 1, 2, 4 through 9, 15 and 16 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) relying on Komives, and the decision rejecting
claims 10, 17 and 36 through 38 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on
Komives and Schultz have been reversed. In addition, we have
REMANDED this application to the examiner to consider certain
designated prior art and possible rejections flowing
therefrom.
13
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007