Appeal No. 2003-0992
Application 09/934,026
U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, is no less stringent or demanding simply because the appellant is
attempting to provoke an interference by copying claims from an issued patent.
Conclusion
The rejection of claims 2, 4, 5, 6, 10, 11 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over the combined teachings of Dresen and Kuhns is affirmed.
The rejection of claims 3, 7, 8, 12 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the
combined teachings of Dresen and Kuhns is reversed.
The rejection of claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the combined
teachings of Dresen, Kuhns, and Wayne is affirmed.
No period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be
extended under 37 CFR § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
RICHARD E. SCHAFER )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
JAMESON LEE ) APPEALS AND
Administrative Patent Judge ) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
SALLY C. MEDLEY )
Administrative Patent Judge )
13
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007