Ex Parte GARG et al - Page 10

          Appeal No. 2002-1797                                                        
          Application 09/129,38                                                       

               For the reasons stated above, the examiner has failed to               
          establish a prima facie case of anticipation.  The anticipation             
          rejection of claims 1-10, 13-18, and 21-25, and the obviousness             
          rejection of claims 11, 12, 19, and 20, which depend therefrom,             
          are reversed.                                                               
                                      REVERSED                                        





                         JAMES D. THOMAS               )                              
                         Administrative Patent Judge   )                              
                                                       )                              

                                                       ))  BOARD OF PATENT            
                         LEE E. BARRETT                )     APPEALS                  
                         Administrative Patent Judge )       AND                      
                                                       )   INTERFERENCES              
                                                       )                              
                                                       )                              
                         LANCE LEONARD BARRY           )                              
                         Administrative Patent Judge )                                













                                       - 10 -                                         





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next 

Last modified: November  3, 2007