Appeal No. 1997-1663 Page 8
Application No. 08/448,053
On this record, the examiner has simply failed to set
forth a prima facie case of anticipation or obviousness of the
claimed invention.
CONCLUSION
The decision of the examiner to reject claims 1-3 under
35 U.S.C. § 102 as anticipated by or, in the alternative,
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Saito, Mumaw
or Frame; and to reject claims 1-3 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as
anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Saitou is reversed.
REVERSED
TERRY J. OWENS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
THOMAS A. WALTZ ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007