Appeal No. 1999-0437
Application 08/627,249
in view of Bahl with respect to claims 5, 9, 14 and 18, and
Hollier in view of Bahl and Picone with respect to claims 6-8
and 15-17.
Rather than repeat the arguments of appellants or the
examiner, we make reference to the briefs and the answer for
the respective details thereof.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the subject matter on
appeal, the rejections advanced by the examiner and the
evidence of anticipation and obviousness relied upon by the
examiner as support for the rejections. We have, likewise,
reviewed and taken into consideration, in reaching our
decision, the appellants’ arguments set forth in the briefs
along with the examiner’s rationale in support of the
rejections and arguments in rebuttal set forth in the
examiner’s answer.
It is our view, after consideration of the record
before us, that the applied prior art does not support any of
the rejections made by the examiner. Accordingly, we reverse.
We consider first the rejection of claims 1, 10 and 19
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by the
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007