Appeal No. 2000-1121
Application No. 08/827,656
The examiner has not contended and we do not consider the
above-discussed deficiencies of Rutherford to be supplied by
the additionally applied references to Cline and Morris.
Accordingly, we also cannot sustain the examiner’s Section 103
rejections of claims 27 and 28 as being unpatentable over
Rutherford in view of Cline and of claim 30 as being
unpatentable over Rutherford in view of Morris.
The decision of the examiner is reversed.
REVERSED
EDWARD C. KIMLIN )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
BRADLEY R. GARRIS ) APPEALS AND
Administrative Patent Judge ) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
BEVERLY A. PAWLIKOWSKI )
Administrative Patent Judge )
BRG:hh
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007