Appeal No. 1998-1698 Application No. 08/411,033 of claim 9 and its dependent claims 10-14. The examiner has not relied upon the teachings of Stevens ‘183 or Higashitsutsumi to remedy the above noted deficiencies in the combination of Hieda and Stevens ‘774. Similarly, we find that they do not remedy the above noted deficiencies. CONCLUSION To summarize, the decision of the examiner to reject claims 1-6 and 9-14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed. REVERSED JAMES D. THOMAS ) Administrative Patent Judge ) ) ) ) ) BOARD OF PATENT LEE E. BARRETT ) APPEALS Administrative Patent Judge ) AND ) INTERFERENCES ) ) ) JOSEPH L. DIXON ) Administrative Patent Judge ) JD/RWK 10Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007