Appeal No. 2003-0348
Application 09/567,145
combine the plurality of references to arrive at the claimed
invention.
Although appellant nominally argues independent claims 25
and 37 separately, the arguments with respect to these claims are
the same arguments made with respect to claim 17. Therefore, for
all the reasons discussed above, we also do not sustain the
examiner’s rejection of independent claim 25, each of the claims
which depends therefrom, and independent claim 37.
In summary, we have not sustained the examiner’s
rejection with respect to any of the claims on appeal.
Therefore, the decision of the examiner rejecting claims 17-20,
25-29 and 37 is reversed.
REVERSED
JERRY SMITH )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
HOWARD B. BLANKENSHIP ) BOARD OF PATENT
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
MAHSHID D. SAADAT )
Administrative Patent Judge )
JS/dym
-8-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007