Appeal No. 2002-2067
Application No. 09/411,730
appear to be a “programming...with an actuation sequence.”
CONCLUSION
We have sustained the rejection of claims 6, 9, 16 and 19-21
under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Additionally, we have sustained the
rejection of claims 1-4, 7, 8, 15 and 17 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e). We have not sustained the rejection of claims 5,
10-14 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
Accordingly, the examiner’s decision is affirmed-in-part.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR
§ 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
KENNETH W. HAIRSTON )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
)
ERROL A. KRASS ) BOARD OF PATENT
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
LEE E. BARRETT )
Administrative Patent Judge )
EK/RWK
-10–
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007