Appeal No. 2003-2106
Application No. 09/604,662
The obviousness rejection of claims 7 through 12, 15, 18 and
19 is reversed because the teachings of Geary do not cure the noted
shortcomings in the teachings of the admitted prior art and Leuchs.
DECISION
The decision of the examiner rejecting claims 20 and 24 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is affirmed as to claim 20, and is reversed as
to claim 24. The decision of the examiner rejecting claims 1
through 19 and 21 through 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is reversed.
Accordingly, the decision of the examiner is affirmed-in-part.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection
with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
KENNETH W. HAIRSTON )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
ERROL A. KRASS ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
LANCE LEONARD BARRY )
Administrative Patent Judge )
KWH/lp
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007