Appeal No. 2000-0132
Application No. 08/934,791
CONCLUSION
In view of the foregoing:
1) The examiner’s rejection of claims 21 through 25, 27, 31,
44 through 46, 48, 52, 54, 55 and 61 under 35 U.S.C. § 251
as “lacking reissuable error” is reversed;
2) The examiner’s rejection of claims 21 through 25, 27, 31,
44 through 46, 48, 52, 54, 55 and 61 under 35 U.S.C. § 251
as “not being drawn to the same invention as the original
patent” is reversed;
3) The examiner’s rejection of claims 21 through 25, 27, 31,
44 through 46, 48, 52, 54, 55 and 61 under 35 U.S.C. § 251
as being based on a defective reissue declaration is
reversed;
4) The examiner’s rejection of claims 21, 23, 25, 29, 44 and
46 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the combined
disclosures of Hagel and Mikes is reversed;
5) The examiner’s rejection of claims 22 and 25 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over the combined disclosures of Hagel
and Mikes is affirmed;
6) The examiner’s rejection of claims 21 and 23 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over the combined disclosures of
Hagel, Mikes, and Schaeffer is affirmed;
22
Page: Previous 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007