Appeal No. 2006-1107
Application No. 09/382,442
modification of the applied prior art proposed by the examiner
can only be the result of an improper attempt to reconstruct the
claimed invention in hindsight.
Since neither Nakajima nor Sheu overcomes the
deficiencies in the basic combination of references discussed
above, we also do not sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims
6 and 11-14.
In summary, we have not sustained any of the examiner’s
rejections of the claims on appeal. Therefore, the decision of
the examiner rejecting claims 1, 2 and 4-14 is reversed.
REVERSED
KENNETH W. HAIRSTON )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
JERRY SMITH )
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
)
) INTERFERENCES
)
MAHSHID D. SAADAT )
Administrative Patent Judge )
JS/hh
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007