Appeal No. 1999-2800
Application No. 08/761,659
there are differences between parent claim 1 and Samson, and
in light of those differences we find no teaching or
suggestion in Samson which would have rendered obvious to one
of ordinary skill the subject matter recited in parent claim
1.
Conclusion
The examiner's decision to reject claims 1 to 7 under
§ 102(e), and claims 8 to 17 under § 103(a), is reversed.
REVERSED
IAN A. CALVERT )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
LAWRENCE J. STAAB )
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
)
) INTERFERENCES
)
JOHN P. MCQUADE )
Administrative Patent Judge )
IAC:lmb
E THOMAS WHEELOCK
MORRISON & FOERSTER
755 PAGE MILL ROAD
PALO ALTO, CA 94304-1018
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Last modified: November 3, 2007