Appeal No. 2002-2078
Application No. 09/209,211
We also will not sustain the rejection of claims 2-8, 11-17
and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 because, with regard to claim 20,
Stipanovich is devoid of any teaching of a particular claim
limitation and the examiner has not explained why the claimed
subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to the skilled
artisan in view of Stipanovich. With regard to claims 2-8 and
11-17, Parrish does not provide for the deficiency, noted supra,
of Stipanovich.
Accordingly, the examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 9,
10, 18 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) and claims 2-8, 11-17 and
20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
REVERSED
ERROL A. KRASS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
)
LEE E. BARRETT ) BOARD OF PATENT
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
MAHSHID D. SAADAT )
Administrative Patent Judge )
EK/RWK
-9–
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007