Appeal No. 2001-0680
Application No. 09/141,637
In light of the foregoing, the examiner’s rejection of claim 9
as being unpatentable over Hawkins in view of Ritter and Moore
cannot be sustained.
Concerning the rejection of claims 1, 3 and 4 further in view
of Luders, and the rejection of claim 8 further in view of Luders
and Klinger, these additional references have been applied for
reasons other than for the deficiencies attributed to Hawkins
discussed above. For this reason, the rejections of these claims
also cannot be sustained.
The decision of the examiner is reversed.
REVERSED
HARRISON McCANDLISH )
Senior Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
IRWIN CHARLES COHEN ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
LAWRENCE J. STAAB )
Administrative Patent Judge )
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007