Appeal No. 1998-2482
Application No. 08/533,429
members deflecting away from each other as being new matter. In any event, it is
improper for the examiner to ignore claim limitations when applying prior art against the
claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and/or 103.
We have sustained the rejection of claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 9, 10, 14, 15, 17 and 19 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) but we have not sustained the rejection of claims 1-22 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112 or the rejection of claims 3-5, 8, 11-13, 16, 18 and 20-22 under 103. Accordingly,
the examiner’s decision is affirmed-in-part.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may
be extended under 37 CFR 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
ERROL A. KRASS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
LEE E. BARRETT ) APPEALS AND
Administrative Patent Judge ) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
ANITA PELLMAN GROSS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007