Appeal No. 2005-2244 Page 5 Application No. 10/157,386 Therefore, we will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102. Other Issues We have noted the following typographical errors in Appellants specification: At page 5, line 28, both occurrences of “48” should read --38--; and At page 11, line 15, “200” should read --20--. Conclusion In view of the foregoing discussion, we have not sustained the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102 of claims 1-22. REVERSED Errol Krass ) Administrative Patent Judge ) ) ) ) BOARD OF PATENT Stuart S. Levy ) Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND ) ) INTERFERENCES ) Allen R. MacDonald ) Administrative Patent Judge ) ARM/jlbPage: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007