Ex parte ASTLE et al. - Page 11

          Appeal No. 1998-0622                                                        
          Application No. 08/360,972                                                  

          above,                                                                      
          claims 39 and 40 which depend on claim 37, are also not met by              
          this combination.  Therefore, we do not sustain the                         
          obviousness rejection of claims 39 and 40, over Caci, Hayano                
          and Buhrke.                                                                 





               The decision of the examiner rejecting claims 3 to 21, 24              
          to 40, and 42 to 44 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.                      




                                      REVERSED                                        






                    LEE E. BARRETT           )                                        
                    Administrative Patent Judge  )                                    
                                                  )                                   
                                                  )                                   
                                                  )   BOARD OF PATENT                 
                    MICHAEL R. FLEMING           )     APPEALS AND                    
                    Administrative Patent Judge  )    INTERFERENCES                   
                                                  )                                   
                                                  )                                   
                                          11                                          





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  Next 

Last modified: November  3, 2007