Appeal No. 2002-2164
Application No. 09/067,599
dependent claims does not remedy the deficiency in the Section 102 rejection applied
against claim 36.
For the foregoing reasons we sustain the rejection of claim 17, but do not sustain
the rejection of claim 18, 37, or 38, under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Dosiere and Jeng.
CONCLUSION
The rejection of claims 15, 16, 19, 20, and 33 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being
anticipated by Dosiere is affirmed. The rejection of claim 36 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as
being anticipated by Dosiere is reversed.
The rejection of claim 33 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being anticipated by Williams
is reversed.
The rejection of claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Dosiere and Jeng is affirmed. The rejection of claims 18, 37, and 38 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Dosiere and Jeng is reversed.
The examiner’s decision in rejecting claims 15-20, 33, and 36-38 is thus affirmed-
in-part.
-9-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007