Appeal No. 2002-1198
Application 09/349,306
find nothing therein which would provide for, or otherwise render
obvious, that which we have found above to be lacking in the
examiner’s asserted combination of Williams, White and Gidney.
Thus, the examiner’s rejection of dependent claim 4 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Williams, White,
Gidney and Shiraishi will also not be sustained.
It follows from the foregoing that the decision of the
examiner rejecting claims 1 and 4 of the present application
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is reversed.
REVERSED
CHARLES E. FRANKFORT )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
LAWRENCE J. STAAB )
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
)
) INTERFERENCES
)
JENNIFER D. BAHR )
Administrative Patent Judge )
CEF:pgg
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007