Appeal No. 2005-0346
Application. 09/897,891
Other Issues
The Examiner’s attention is directed to Aoki et al., U.S.
Patent 6,545,354 (filed February 7, 2000), which teaches aspects
of the claimed invention that are missing from Lach et al. We
leave it to the Examiner to determine the appropriateness of any
rejection based on a combination of the Aoki et al. and Lach et
al. patents.
Conclusion
In view of the foregoing discussion, we have not sustained
the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102 of claims 1-3, 5-8, 10,
21-23, 25-28, and 30-34; and we have not sustained the rejection
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of claims 4, 9, 24, and 29.
REVERSED
JAMES D. THOMAS )
Administrative Patent Judge)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
LANCE LEONARD BARRY ) APPEALS AND
Administrative Patent Judge) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
ALLEN R. MACDONALD )
Administrative Patent Judge)
ARM:pgc
Frederick W. Gibb, III
77
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007