Appeal No. 2002-1435
Application No. 08/861,213
Section 103 rejection of Claims 24 and 25
Because we are persuaded of error in the rejection of claim 19, and Åkerberg
fails to remedy the deficiencies with respect to Vucetic, we do not sustain the section
103 rejection of claims 24 and 25, which depend from claim 19.
CONCLUSION
The rejection of claims 18 and 26-35 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being anticipated
by Vucetic is affirmed. The rejection of claims 19-23 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being
anticipated by Vucetic is reversed. The rejection of claims 24 and 25 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Vucetic and Åkerberg is reversed.
The examiner’s decision in rejecting claims 18-35 is thus affirmed-in-part.
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007