Appeal No. 2006-0135
Application 10/271,656
invention, we must refuse to sustain the examiner’s rejection of those claims, and claims 2
through 5, 7 through 10, 14, 25 and 26 which depend therefrom, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
As for the examiner’s rejection of claims 11 through 13, 15 through 19 and 21
through 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Emmons in view
Hohnstadt and Matsumura, we have reviewed the patent to Matsumura and find that it does
not overcome or otherwise cure the deficiency in the basic combination to Emmons and
Hohnstadt noted above. Thus, the rejection of dependent claims 11 through 13, 15 through
19 and 21 through 24 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) will likewise not be sustained.
In light of the foregoing, the decision of the examiner is reversed.
REVERSED
CHARLES E. FRANKFORT ) Administrative
Patent Judge )
)
)
)
TERRY J. OWENS ) BOARD OF PATENT
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS
) AND
) INTERFERENCES
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007