Appeal No. 2006-2012
Application No. 10/408,875
distinction between the methods of the appellant and Hartmann
does not exist.
For the above reasons we find the appellant’s claimed
invention to be anticipated by Hartmann.
DECISION
The rejection of claims 1-7, 9-17 and 19-25 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) over Hartmann is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR
§ 1.136(a).
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013