Appeal No. 2002-2039 Page 19
Application No. 09/258,712
For the reasons set forth above, the decision of the examiner to reject claims 1
to 4, 6 to 10, 21 to 24, 26 and 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Moncelle in view of Ganser is affirmed and the decision of the examiner to reject claims
1, 6 to 10, 21, 26 and 27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Anderson in view of Ganser is affirmed.
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the decision of the examiner to reject claims 1 to 4, 6, 8 to 10, 21
to 24, 26 and 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Sturman is affirmed
with respect to claims 1 to 4, 6, 8 and 10 and reversed with respect to claims 9, 21 to
24, 26 and 27; the decision of the examiner to reject claims 1 to 4, 6 to 10, 21 to 24, 26
and 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Moncelle in view of Ganser
is affirmed; and the decision of the examiner to reject claims 1, 6 to 10, 21, 26 and 27
stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson in view of
Ganser is affirmed.
Since at least one rejection of each of the appealed claims has been affirmed,
the decision of the examiner is affirmed.
7(...continued)
denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984).
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007