Appeal 2007-2016
Application 09/148,392
CONCLUSION
On the record before us, we find that the Examiner fails to make a
prima facie case that Jyu anticipates claim 1 or the other independent claims
11, 22, and 28, which include similar limitations. Therefore, in view of our
analysis above, the 35 U.S.C. § 102 rejection of claims 1-20 and 22-29 as
anticipated by Jyu cannot be sustained.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1-20 and 22-29 under
35 U.S.C. § 102 is reversed.
REVERSED
APJ Initial
pgc
THINH V NGUYEN
BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR & ZAFMAN
12400 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD
7TH FLOOR
LOS ANGELES CA 90025
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Last modified: September 9, 2013