Appeal No. 2002-1670
Application 08/768,787
Accordingly, since we are of the opinion that the prior art
applied by the Examiner does not support the obviousness
rejection, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claims
1, 15, 32, and 35, nor of claims 2-4, 8-14, 16, 17, 20-28, 33,
34, and 36-39 dependent thereon. Therefore, the decision of the
Examiner rejecting claims 1-4, 8-17, 20-28, and 32-39 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is reversed.
REVERSED
KENNETH W. HAIRSTON )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
LEE E. BARRETT )
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
)
) INTERFERENCES
)
JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO )
Administrative Patent Judge )
JFR:pgc
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007