Appeal No. 99-2124
Application No. 08/844,830
For the reasons set forth above, it is our conclusion
that the teachings of UK ‘000 fail to establish a prima facie
case of obviousness with regard to the subject matter of
independent claim 1, and we therefore will not sustain the
rejection. Since claims 3 and 4 depend from claim 1, it
follows that the rejection of those claims cannot be
sustained.
The teachings of UK ‘697, which was added by the examiner
in the rejection of claim 2, fail to alleviate the
deficiencies pointed out above with regard to claim 1. We
thus will not sustain the rejection of claim 2.
Neither rejection is sustained.
The decision of the examiner is reversed.
REVERSED
James M. Meister )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
Neal E. Abrams ) BOARD OF
PATENT
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007