Appeal No. 2002-0321
Application No. 09/014,729
art would have been motivated to modify the process of Agnello in
the manner claimed. If one of ordinary skill in the art would
have appreciated an advantage in utilizing the claimed
methodology rather than the one described in Agnello, this has
not been divulged by the examiner.
The examiner's further reliance on Autryve in rejecting
claims 16 and 17 does not remedy the basic deficiency of the
combined teachings of Agnello and Wu outlined above.
In conclusion, based on the foregoing, the examiner's
decision rejecting the appealed claims is reversed.
REVERSED
EDWARD C. KIMLIN )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
)
CHARLES F. WARREN ) BOARD OF PATENT
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
THOMAS A. WALTZ )
Administrative Patent Judge )
ECK:clm
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007