Appeal No. 2002-1987
Application No. 08/880,032
not teach the invention of base claim 38 and the failure of
Hickman to provide the missing teaching or suggestion, the
35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of the dependent claim 40 over Freadman
and Hickman cannot be sustained.
CONCLUSION
In view of the foregoing, the decision of the Examiner
rejecting claims 34-39, 41 and 42 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and
rejecting claim 40 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
REVERSED
MICHAEL R. FLEMING )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
JOSEPH L. DIXON ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
MAHSHID D. SAADAT )
Administrative Patent Judge )
MDS/ki
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007