Appeal Number: 2006-1770
Application Number: 10/271,236
As to claim 12, we find no teaching or suggestion in Jenny, and the examiner has
pointed to none, that would overcome the shortcomings of Nakao. Therefore, we cannot
sustain the obviousness rejection of claim 12 over the combination of Nakao and Jenny.
CONCLUSION
The decision of the examiner rejecting claims 10, 19, 20, and 23 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, second paragraph, claims 1 through 5, 8 through 11, 13, 20, 22, and 23 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b), and claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
REVERSED
TERRY J. OWENS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
ANITA PELLMAN GROSS ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
LINDA E. HORNER )
Administrative Patent Judge )
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007