Appeal No. 2001-0830
Application No. 08/917,718
As explained by appellant, at page 8 of the principal brief,
since there is an alternative to providing separate packets in
Kashiwazaki, it cannot be said, as alleged by the examiner, that
the separate packets are “inherent” in Kashiwazaki.
Since independent claim 9 comprises similar features, we
will not sustain the rejection of claims 5 and 8-16 under
35 U.S.C. 103.
Since we have not sustained either the rejection of claims 1
and 4 under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) or the rejection of claims 5 and 8-
16 under 35 U.S.C. 103, the examiner’s decision is reversed.
REVERSED
ERROL A. KRASS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
)
JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO ) BOARD OF PATENT
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
JOSEPH L. DIXON )
Administrative Patent Judge )
-7–
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007