Appeal 97-1618
Application 08/368,078
the prior art, it necessarily follows that the narrower
subject matter of claims 2 and 3 likewise have not been shown
to be unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Further observations concerning the specification
Our review of the specification reveals that there may be
two errors on page 2, lines 27 and 29. It would appear that
the references to FIG. 2 should be references to FIG. 1. Cf.
page 3, line 24 and page 4, lines 12-13. The examiner and
applicants' may wish to determine whether an amendment of the
specification to correct the errors is in order.
REVERSED.
______________________________
WILLIAM F. SMITH, )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
______________________________)
FRED E. McKELVEY, Senior ) BOARD OF PATENT
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
______________________________)
PETER F. KRATZ )
Administrative Patent Judge )
- 7 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007