Appeal No. 2004-2052
Application 09/509,147
To summarize our decision, we note that a) the examiner's
rejection of claims 1 and 3 through 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
first paragraph, has been sustained with regard to claims 1, 3
through 10, 17 and 18, but not with regard to claims 11 through
16, 19 and 20; b) the examiner's rejection of claims 1 and 3
through 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, has been
sustained, but not with regard to all aspects urged by the
examiner; c) the examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 3 through 5
and 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Jones has
not been sustained; d) the rejection of claims 1, 3 through 5, 7
through 9 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Landsberger in view of Jones has not been sustained, and e)
the examiner’s rejection of claims 6, 10 and 12 through 20 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on Landsberger in view of Jones and
Baker has not been sustained.
However, since at least one rejection posited by the
examiner has been sustained with regard to all claims on appeal,
it follows that the decision of the examiner is affirmed.
16
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007