Appeal No. 2000-2081
Application 08/656,082
As for the examiner's rejections of the remaining claims
on appeal under § 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson and
certain secondary references (i.e., Barrera, Kieffer and
Rakula), we have reviewed the secondary references, but find
nothing therein that provides for the deficiencies in Anderson
as noted above. Accordingly, we will not sustain the
examiner's rejections of dependent claims 7, 10, 11 13, 15, 20
and 23 through 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
To summarize our decision, we note that 1) the examiner's
rejection of claims 1, 2, 6, 8, 9, 14, 19, 21, 22, 27 through
29 and 31 through 34 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph,
has not been sustained, 2) the examiner's rejection of claims
1 through 6, 12, 14, 16 through 19, 27 and 29 through 32 under
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Anderson has not been
sustained, and 3) that none of the examiner’s rejections under
35 U.S.C. § 103 of the remaining claims on appeal have been
sustained.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007