Appeal No. 2003-1280 12
Application No. 09/476,633
The examiner simply has not made the case as to why the method of claims 23-25
would have been construed as describing possession of a new concept or invention not
conveyed by the original disclosure.
Consequently, I would reverse the examiner’s stated rejection under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, first paragraph.
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
PETER KRATZ ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007