Appeal No. 2001-2267
Application 08/828,687
invention is suggested by Carr taken alone.
We now consider the rejection of claims 2, 6 and 10 based on
the teachings of the admitted prior art, Carr and Bigus. Since
Bigus does not overcome the deficiencies of the admitted prior
art, we do not sustain the rejection of these claims for the same
reasons discussed above.
In summary, we have not sustained either of the examiner’s
rejections of the claims on appeal. Therefore, the decision of
the examiner rejecting claims 1-12 is reversed.
REVERSED
JERRY SMITH )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
LEE E. BARRETT )
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
)
) INTERFERENCES
)
JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO )
Administrative Patent Judge )
JS:pgc
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007