Appeal No. 1997-2026
Application 08/317,108
come up with the invention of claim 24, without using the
Appellants’ disclosure as a road map. Thus, we do not sustain
the obviousness rejection of claim 24 and the grouped claims 2
to 4, 10 to 15, and 28 to 33 over Uchino and Miyasaka.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 2 to 4, 10
to 15, 24, and 28 to 33 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first and
second paragraphs and under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
REVERSED
PARSHOTAM S. LALL )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
JOSEPH L. DIXON ) BOARD OF PATENT
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
HOWARD B. BLANKENSHIP )
Administrative Patent Judge )
-11-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007