Appeal No. 1997-3121
Application 07/987,048
For the reasons just discussed, we do not sustain the
obviousness rejection of independent claim 5 or of claims 2 and
9-11 which depend therefrom. With respect to independent claim
13, this claim recites limitations similar to the limitations of
claim 5. Therefore, we also do not sustain the obviousness
rejection of claim 13.
The examiner’s rejections of claims 2-5, 8-11 and 13-15
are reversed.
REVERSED
Jerry Smith )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
Parshotam S. Lall ) BOARD OF PATENT
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
Eric S. Frahm )
Administrative Patent Judge )
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007