Appeal No. 2001-1792 Page 9
Application No. 09/291,716
This being the case, a prima facie case of obviousness is lacking, and we will not
sustain the section 103 rejection of independent claim 11 or dependent claims 12-19.
SUMMARY
The rejection of claims 1, 2, 4-6 and 8 as being anticipated by Maxwell is sustained.
The rejection of claims 3 and 7 as being anticipated by Maxwell is not sustained.
The rejection of claims 9 and 10 as being unpatentable over Maxwell is not
sustained.
The rejection of claims 11-19 as being unpatentable over Kieselhorst is not
sustained.
The decision of the examiner is affirmed-in-part.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007