Appeal No. 1998-0449
Application 08/578,900
Since there is at least one recitation of independent
claim 15 which is not fully met by the disclosure of Pinkham,
we do not sustain the rejection of claim 15. Independent
claim 21 has a similar recitation to claim 15 so that we also
do not sustain the rejection of claim 21. All the remaining
claims are dependent claims which depend from either claim 15
or claim 21.
Since the independent claims are not anticipated by the
disclosure of Pinkham, the dependent claims are also not
anticipated by the disclosure of Pinkham.
In summary, we have not sustained the examiner’s
rejection of claims 15-28 under 35 U.S.C. § 102. Therefore,
the decision of the examiner rejecting claims 15-28 is
reversed.
REVERSED
Jerry Smith )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
Joseph L. Dixon ) BOARD OF PATENT
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007