Ex parte PLOMER - Page 8




          Appeal No. 1998-2275                                       Page 8           
          Application No. 08/428,253                                                  


               We have also reviewed the Korhonen, Elvidge and Alheid                 
          references additionally applied in the rejection of the above-              
          noted claims under 35 U.S.C.  103 but find nothing therein                 
          which makes up for the deficiencies of Hartog discussed above.              
          Accordingly, we cannot sustain the examiner's rejection of                  
          appealed claims 20-23, 25, 27, 29 and 30 under 35 U.S.C.                   
          103.                                                                        


                                     CONCLUSION                                       
               To summarize, the decision of the examiner to reject                   
          claims 14-18, 24 and 26 under 35 U.S.C.  102(b) is reversed                
























Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007