Appeal No. 2003-0618
Application No. 09/351,218
specified in claims 25 and 28. Hence, the examiner’s
determination that Bronicki is anticipatory with respect to the
subject matter set forth in these claims is not well taken.
Accordingly, we shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) rejection of independent claims 25 and 28, and dependent
claims 15, 26, 27, 30 and 31, as being anticipated by Bronicki.
II. The 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 16 and 29 as being
unpatentable over Bronicki
In addition to not disclosing the subject matter recited in
independent claims 25 and 28, Bronicki would not have suggested
same to a person having ordinary skill in the art.
Therefore, we also shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) rejection of claims 16 and 29, which depend from claims
25 and 28, respectively, as being unpatentable over Bronicki.
SUMMARY
The decision of the examiner to reject claims 15, 16 and 25
through 31 is reversed.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007