Appeal No. 1999-1487
Application No. 08/591,599
that was argued as not being disclosed by Hinrichs. Since
claim 1 is not anticipated by the evidence, the rejection
thereof under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) cannot be sustained.
As to the respective rejections of the dependent claims
under 35 U.S.C. § 103, we determine that the rationales
thereof, and the addition of the Klaebel teaching, do not
overcome the underlying deficiency of the Hinrichs disclosure,
as described above. Thus, the obviousness rejections cannot
be sustained.
In summary, this panel of the board has not sustained the
respective rejections of appellant’s claims under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) and 35 U.S.C. § 103.
The decision of the examiner is reversed.
REVERSED
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007