Appeal No. 2000-0064
Application 08/625,241
Since each of the claims on appeal recites at least these
features discussed above, we do not sustain the examiner’s
rejection of any of claims 19-22 and 31-33 based on the teachings
of Fleming and Stone. As noted above, this decision offers no
position on the merits of the rejections based on obviousness-
type double patenting. In summary, the decision of the examiner
rejecting claims 19-22 and 31-33 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is
reversed.
REVERSED
)
JERRY SMITH )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
MICHAEL R. FLEMING )
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
)
) INTERFERENCES
)
ANITA PELLMAN GROSS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
13
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007