Appeal No. 2005-1856
Application No. 10/047,365
As previously indicated, the error of the examiner’s
position taints each of the rejections before us. Therefore,
we cannot sustain any of the examiner’s rejections of independent
claim 1 and of dependent claims 2-8. It follows that we hereby
reverse the Section 102 rejection of claims 1-3 as being
anticipated by Vaverka, the Section 103 rejection of claims 4-6
as being unpatentable over Vaverka in view of Shiomi and the
Section 103 rejection of claims 7-8 as being unpatentable over
Vaverka alone.
The decision of the examiner is reversed.
REVERSED
BRADLEY R. GARRIS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
CHARLES F. WARREN )
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
)
) INTERFERENCES
)
THOMAS A. WALTZ )
Administrative Patent Judge )
BRG:hh
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007