Appeal No. 2006-1448
Application No. 10/444,868
Therefore, the examiner has failed to establish a prima facie case of anticipation of
independent claims 9, 14 and 19.
Since the examiner’s anticipation rejection of independent claims 1, 9, 11, 14, 16 and
19 is not supported by the applied prior art, the rejection of all dependent claims fails for the
same reasons discussed above. Therefore, the decision of the examiner rejecting claims 1-20
is reversed.
REVERSED
JERRY SMITH ) Comment [COMMENT1]: The year
should be entered here.
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
HOWARD B. BLANKENSHIP ) APPEALS AND
Administrative Patent Judge ) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
JEAN R. HOMERE )
Administrative Patent Judge )
JS/rwk
RYAN, MASON & LEWIS, LLP
SUITE 205
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007