Appeal No. 1998-0701
Application 08/263,744
the rejection of claims 1-4, 10 and 12 based on these
teachings.
The rejection of claims 5-9, 11 and 13 relies on the
same combination of Fukami and Minoda discussed above. Since
the additional teachings of Enoki or Enoki and Kim do not
overcome the deficiencies in the basic combination discussed
above, we do not sustain the rejection of these claims based
on the prior art cited by the examiner.
In summary, we have not sustained any of the
examiner’s rejections of the claims. Therefore, the decision
of the examiner rejecting claims 1-13 is reversed.
REVERSED
JERRY SMITH )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
MICHAEL R. FLEMING ) BOARD OF PATENT
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
-12-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007