Appeal No. 2003-0193
Application 09/306,469
discussed above with respect to claim 1 (answer, pages 4-5).
These arguments are not persuasive for the reasons given above
regarding the rejection of that claim.
Accordingly, we reverse the rejections of independent
claims 21 and 30 and dependent claims 22-29 and 31-38.
DECISION
The rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of claims 1, 2, 5, 6,
12, 13, 16, 21, 29 and 30 over Brais in view of Ackley, and
claims 3, 4, 7-11, 14, 15, 17-20, 22-28 and 31-38 over Brais in
view of Ackley and well-known prior art, are reversed.
REVERSED
)
LEE E. BARRETT )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
MICHAEL R. FLEMING )
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
)
) INTERFERENCES
)
TERRY J. OWENS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007