Appeal No. 2005-1309
Application No. 09/971,505
Thus, as applied by the examiner, Hooker does not justify a
finding that the subject matter recited in independent claim 1
lacks novelty. Accordingly, we shall not sustain the standing 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of claim 1, and dependent claims 3
through 11, as being anticipated by Hooker.
II. The 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claim 2 as being
unpatentable over Hooker in view of Kanno
As Kanno fails to cure the above noted shortcomings of
Hooker relative to independent claim 1, we shall not sustain the
standing 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of dependent claim 2 as
being unpatentable over Hooker in view of Kanno.
SUMMARY
The decision of the examiner to reject claims 1 through
11 is reversed.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007