Appeal No. 2004-0299
Application No. 09/932,543
by Tremblay if it were provided with the rotational feature
proposed by the examiner.
For this reason, we cannot sustain the examiner’s section
103 rejection of claims 9-13 and 15-20 as being unpatentable over
Tremblay in view of Raber or the corresponding rejection of claim
14 as being unpatentable over these references and further in
view of Prichard.
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
Bradley R. Garris )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
Catherine Timm ) BOARD OF PATENT
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
Beverly A. Pawlikowski )
Administrative Patent Judge )
BRG:tdl
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007