Appeal No. 2006-0497
Application No. 10/444,772
assembly of instant Figure 1B and that of the reference applied against claim 1, but we
agree with appellant that the claim distinguishes over the assembly of the reference.
As the Dockerty reference does not remedy the deficiencies of Earnworth, we
sustain neither of the rejections on appeal.
CONCLUSION
The rejection of claims 1-6, 8, and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being anticipated
by Earnworth and the rejection of claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Earnworth and Dockerty are reversed.
REVERSED
JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
STUART S. LEVY ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
HOWARD B. BLANKENSHIP )
Administrative Patent Judge )
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007