Appeal No. 2006-2382
Application 09/902,140
and then performing manual corrections before carrying out a
transient analysis. The examiner has not pointed out where each
step is found in the references. Thus, the rejection does not
establish a prima facie case of obviousness. The rejection of
claims 1, 2, 5-8, 13, and 14 is reversed.
CONCLUSION
The rejections of claims 1, 2, 5-8, 13, and 14 are reversed.
REVERSED
LEE E. BARRETT )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
JAMESON LEE ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
SALLY C. MEDLEY )
Administrative Patent Judge )
- 10 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007