Appeal 2007-2563
Application 10/058,640
SUMMARY
Giving the claims their broadest reasonable interpretation, we
conclude that the Examiner erred in determining Dang describes every
element of the claimed invention as required for anticipation under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b). This deficiency is not correct by Dinh. Accordingly, the
rejections of all the appealed claims are
REVERSED.
dm
Vidas, Arrett & Steinkraus, P.A.
Suite 400, 6640 Shady Oak Road
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Last modified: September 9, 2013