Appeal No. 2003-0425
Application 08/773,692
contains limitations similar to independent claim 1. Therefore,
the evidence relied on by the examiner fails to support the
rejection of these claims for the same reasons discussed above
with respect to claim 1. Although independent claims 9 and 14
were rejected using the additional teachings of Shwed, Shwed does
not overcome the deficiencies in the basic combination of Baker
and Dascalu discussed above.
In summary, we have not sustained either of the examiner’s
rejections of the claims on appeal. Therefore, the decision of
the examiner rejecting claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 8-23 and 25-29 is
reversed.
REVERSED
JERRY SMITH )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
LEE E. BARRETT ) BOARD OF PATENT
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO )
Administrative Patent Judge )
JS/dal
-8-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007