Appeal No. 2003-2038
Application 09/288,833
Turning to the rejection of claims 2 and 12 as being
unpatentable over Adams in view of Cellario and Goyal, and the
rejection of claims 8 and 18 as being unpatentable over Adams in
view of Cellario and Orchard, we fail to find that Goyal or
Orchard teaches the above limitation. We note that claims 2,
8, 12 and 18 depend from claims 1 and 11. Therefore, we will
not sustain these rejections for the same reasons as above.
In view of the foregoing, we have not sustained the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 through 20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103.
REVERSED
JERRY SMITH )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
MICHAEL R. FLEMING ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO )
Administrative Patent Judge )
MRF:psb
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007