Appeal No. 2000-0937
Application 08/959,620
23-32. Since the examiner has not addressed the scope of the
claimed invention required by these transitional phrases, we find
that the examiner has failed to demonstrate that the disclosure
of Sudo fully meets the invention set forth in claims 23-32.
In summary, we have sustained the examiner’s rejection
with respect to claims 1-9, but we have not sustained this
rejection with respect to claims 23-32. Therefore, the decision
of the examiner rejecting claims 1-9 and 23-32 is affirmed-in-
part.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR
§ 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
)
JERRY SMITH )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
LEE E. BARRETT )
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
)
) INTERFERENCES
)
MAHSHID SAADAT )
Administrative Patent Judge )
-7-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007