Appeal No. 2002-2100
Application No. 09/042,334
Claims 1, 2, 6, 8, 10, and 11, all of the appealed claims,
stand finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being
anticipated by Wilkes.
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and the
Examiner, reference is made to the Briefs1 and Answer for the
respective details.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the subject matter on appeal,
the rejection advanced by the Examiner and the evidence of
anticipation relied upon by the Examiner as support for the
rejection. We have, likewise, reviewed and taken into
consideration, in reaching our decision, Appellant’s arguments
set forth in the Briefs along with the Examiner’s rationale in
support of the rejection and arguments in rebuttal set forth in
the Examiner’s Answer.
It is our view, after consideration of the record before us,
that the Wilkes reference does not fully meet the invention as
set forth in claims 1, 2, 6, 8, 10, and 11. Accordingly, we
reverse.
1 The Appeal Brief was filed February 14, 2002 (Paper No. 24). In
response to the Examiner’s Answer dated April 9, 2002 (Paper No. 25), a Reply
Brief was filed July 16, 2002 (Paper No. 28), which was acknowledged and
entered by the Examiner as indicated in the communication dated August 14,
2002 (Paper No. 29).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007