Appeal No. 1998-1824
Application No. 08/463,383
U.S.C. § 103, and whether the combined teachings of the Bales,
Linne, and Kalt patents would have been suggestive of the
subject matter of method claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.3
In summary, this panel of the board has reversed the
examiner’s rejection of claims 16 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
and remanded the application to the examiner for assessment of
the matters set forth above.
The decision of the examiner is reversed.
REVERSED AND REMANDED
HARRISON E. McCANDLISH )
Senior Administrative Patent Judge
)
)
)
3The Bales (U.S. Patent No. 5,054,482) and Kalt (U.S.
Patent No. 5,000,741) documents were extensively discussed in
the referenced earlier decision (Appeal No. 97-0082) of the
Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences. In particular, on
pages 10, 17, and 18 of the decision the Bales teaching is
addressed, while on page 15 of the decision the Kalt
disclosure is discussed.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007