Appeal No. 2001-1235 Paper 14
Application No. 08/951,943 Page 6
predetermined temperature” in line 3.
It is also suggested that the examiner take a look at U.S. Patent 6,238,700 to
Dohner et al., which issued from an application which is a continuation-in-part of the
instant application, to see if a double patenting rejection might be appropriate,
especially in view of appellants arguments above that placing the film or lamina
between two non-porous substrates protects it from environmental exposure.
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the decision of the examiner to reject claims 1-26 under
35 U.S.C. §102(b) as anticipated by Campbell is reversed.
REVERSED
_____________________ )
RICHARD TORCZON )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
_______________________ ) BOARD OF PATENT
CAROL A. SPIEGEL ) APPEALS AND
Administrative Patent Judge ) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
_________________________ )
SALLY GARDNER-LANE )
Administrative Patent Judge )
CAS/yrt
Michael J. Rafa
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007