Appeal No. 2001-1412 Paper No. 29
Application No. 08/629,177 Page 9
terms which are both supported by appellants’ specification within the meaning of
35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, and take whatever action, if any, is appropriate.
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the decision of the examiner (I) to reject claims 1-4, 7-9, 15-17, 20-
22, 28-34, 40-45 and 51-54 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Deeg in view of Rutner, (II) to
reject claims 14, 27, 39 and 50 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Deeg in view of Rutner as
applied to claims 1-4, 7-9, 15-17, 20-22, 28-34, 40-45 and 51-54 above, and further in
view of Freundlich taken with each of Ohman, Mair and Rabitzsch, and (III) to reject claims
10-13, 23-26, 35-38 and 46-49 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Deeg in view of Rutner as
applied to claims 1-4, 7-9, 15-17, 20-22, 28-34, 40-45 and 51-54 above, and further in
view of Freundlich in view of Diamandis and Xu is reversed.
REVERSED
_____________________ )
RICHARD TORCZON )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
_______________________ ) BOARD OF PATENT
CAROL A. SPIEGEL ) APPEALS AND
Administrative Patent Judge ) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
_________________________ )
SALLY GARDNER-LANE )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007