Appeal No. 2004-1177
Application No. 08/769,404
dependent claims. Moreover, we do not find that O’Rourke, Marlin, Reed or Dietzman
remedy the deficiency in the combination of Hurvig and Rowland. Since independent
claims 4, 10, 21, and 31 contain similar limitations and the additional references relied
upon by the examiner do not remedy the above noted deficiencies, we will not sustain
the rejection of independent claims 4, 10, 21, and 31 and their dependent claims.
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the decision of the examiner to reject claims 1-44 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
REVERSED
JAMES D. THOMAS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
KENNETH W. HAIRSTON ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
JOSEPH L. DIXON )
Administrative Patent Judge )
JD/RWK
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007