Appeal 2006-2429
Application 09/999,580
1 Wallman does not make up for the deficiencies of Basch and Tull. It follows
2 that we cannot sustain the rejection of claims 6-8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
3
4 CONCLUSION OF LAW
5 On the record before us, Appellants have shown that the Examiner has
6 erred in rejecting claims 10-23 under 35 U.S.C. § 112 (second paragraph)
7 and erred in rejecting claims 1-9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
8 DECISION
9 The Examiner's rejection of claims 1-23 is Reversed.
10 REVERSED
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20 hh
21
22
23 ACCENTURE CHICAGO 28164
24 BRINKS HOFER GILSON & LIONE
25 P.O. BOX 10395
26 CHICAGO, IL 60610
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Last modified: September 9, 2013