Appeal No. 2006-0516
Application No. 10/344,013
as durations of time, not that the cycle applications take place in
time between those thresholds.
For the above reasons we conclude that the examiner has not
carried the burden of establishing a prima facie case of
anticipation or obviousness of the appellants’ claimed invention.
DECISION
The rejections of claims 1, 6-8 and 10-13 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) over Nielsen, and claims 2-5 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
over Nielsen in view of Oliver, are reversed.
REVERSED
CHARLES E. FRANKFORT )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
TERRY J. OWENS ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007