Appeal No. 2004-0723
Application No. 09/768,974
drawing that is part of the Examiner's Answer. This also holds
for separately argued claim 39. We note that appellant states
that "[c]laim 39 distinguishes over Tohkairin for the reasons set
forth above for the Group II and III claims" (page 8 of Brief,
paragraph four).
In conclusion, based on the foregoing, we will sustain the
examiner's rejection of claims 13, 20, 23-30, 35 and 37-39, but
reverse the examiner's rejection of claims 1-12, 14-19, 21
and 22. Accordingly, the examiner's decision rejecting the
appealed claims 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
EDWARD C. KIMLIN )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
ERROL A. KRASS ) BOARD OF PATENT
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
BEVERLY PAWLIKOWSKI )
Administrative Patent Judge )
ECK:clm
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007