Appeal No. 1997-1232
Application No. 08/182,035
In view of the above, it is our opinion that, since all
of the claimed limitations are not taught or suggested in the
prior art of record, the Examiner has not established a prima
facie case of anticipation. Accordingly, we do not sustain
the
35 U.S.C. § 102 rejections of claims 1, 2, and 23.
In summary, we have not sustained either of the
Examiner’s rejections of the claims on appeal. Therefore, the
decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1, 2, and 23 is
reversed.
REVERSED
)
)
)
JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO ) BOARD OF PATENT
Administrative Patent Judge )
) APPEALS AND
)
) INTERFERENCES
)
STUART N. HECKER )
Administrative Patent Judge )
FLEMING, Administrative Patent Judge, Dissenting-in-Part:
While I agree that the rejection of claims 2 and 23 under
35 U.S.C. § 102 should be reversed for the reasons set forth
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007