Appeal No. 2005-1705
Application 09/455,956
With respect to claims 33-36, 39, 40, 43 and 44, which are
rejected on the teachings of Lobb, Moriarty and Eiba in addition
to either the admitted prior art, Wayner and Emery, we will not
sustain the examiner’s rejection of these claims because neither
the admitted prior art, Wayner nor Emery overcomes the
deficiencies of the basic combination of references as discussed
above.
In summary, we have not sustained any of the examiner’s
rejections of the claims on appeal. Therefore, the decision of
the examiner rejecting claims 1, 2, 4-9 and 11-44 is reversed.
REVERSED
JERRY SMITH )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO ) BOARD OF PATENT
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
HOWARD B. BLANKENSHIP )
Administrative Patent Judge )
-11-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007