Appeal No. 2004-0570
Application No. 09/425,532
We next consider the rejection of claims 6 through 8 and 10 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over Zellweger in view of Caid and Kisiel.
Claims 6 through 8 and 10 all ultimately depend upon independent claim 1. As
discussed supra, we find that the combination of Zellweger and Caid do not
teach the limitation of an extracting means, as claimed in claim 1. The examiner
has not asserted, nor do we find that Kisiel teaches an extracting means as
claimed. Accordingly, for the reasons stated supra with respect to the rejection
of claim 1, we will not sustain the rejection of dependent claims 6 through 8 and
10.
In summary, we will not sustain the examiner’s rejections of claims 1, 3, 5
through 11, 13, and 15 through 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
REVERSED
JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
MAHSHID D. SAADAT ) APPEALS AND
Administrative Patent Judge ) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
ROBERT E. NAPPI )
Administrative Patent Judge )
REN/RWK
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007