Appeal No. 1999-1787
Application No. 08/797,521
filed April 24, 1997 (Paper No. 2). In Figures 5 and 9, the
Judkins patent, which is prior art by virtue of its filing
date, appears to show subject matter corresponding to that set
forth in appellant’s claims 28 and 29 on appeal, while the
patent to Chi Yu shows, in Figure 1, subject matter pertinent
to appellant’s claim 1 on appeal.
To summarize, we have affirmed the examiner’s rejection
of claims 25 and 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph,
but have reversed the examiner’s rejection of 1 through 8 and
21 through 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on Simon. Thus,
the decision of the examiner is affirmed-in-part. In
addition, we are remanding this case to the examiner to
consider certain designated prior art already of record in the
application with regard to possibly making rejections of
certain of the claims on appeal.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR
§ 1.136(a).
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007