Appeal No. 1998-2979
Application No. 08/274,923
Since we find that claims 1 and its dependent claims 2-8 are not anticipated by the
express teachings of Kuechlin or by inherency, we cannot sustain the rejection under 35
U.S.C. § 102. Claim 9 contains similar limitations to claim 1, and we cannot sustain the
rejection of claim 9 and its dependent claims 10-17 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 for the same
reasons.
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the decision of the examiner to reject claims 1-17 under 35 U.S.C. §
102 is reversed.
REVERSED
KENNETH W. HAIRSTON )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
JOSEPH L. DIXON )
Administrative Patent Judge )
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007