Appeal No. 2002-1492 Page 9
Application No. 09/352,161
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the decision of the examiner to reject claims 1 to 25 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is reversed and the decision of the examiner to reject claims 1 to 26
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.3
REVERSED
NEAL E. ABRAMS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
LAWRENCE J. STAAB ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
JEFFREY V. NASE )
Administrative Patent Judge )
3 On February 26, 2003, we remanded (Paper No. 26) this application to the examiner to consider
if any of seven references supported a rejection under either (1) 35 U.S.C. § 102 or (2) 35 U.S.C. § 103
(alone or in combination with other prior art). In the supplemental answer, the examiner stated that the
seven references have been considered but are not deemed to any more relevant to the claims than the
references relied upon in the rejections under appeal. In view of our reversal of the rejections under
appeal, the examiner may wish to reconsider the relevancy of the seven references by determining
whether or not a rejection can be made under either (1) 35 U.S.C. § 102 or (2) 35 U.S.C. § 103 (alone or
in combination with other prior art).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007