Appeal No. 2004-1331 Page 7
Application No. 09/812,664
shape projecting in opposite direction from the other side, and wherein the angle of the
substantially conical shape is obtuse.
The examiner's position (answer, pp. 9-10) is that claims 53, 54, 57 and 58 are
readable on the wheel shown in Fig. 11-29 of Handbook. We do not agree. As pointed
out by the appellant in the brief, the wheel shown in Fig. 11-29 of Handbook does not
have a substantially conical shape1 but instead has a substantially frustoconical shape.
Accordingly, claims 53, 54, 57 and 58 are not anticipated by Handbook.
For the reasons set forth above, the decision of the examiner to reject claims 53,
54, 57 and 58 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is reversed.
The obviousness rejections
We have also reviewed the references to Stratford and Barry additionally applied
in the rejection of claims 55, 56 and 59 to 72 but find nothing therein which makes up
for the deficiencies of Handbook discussed above. Accordingly, we cannot sustain the
examiner's rejection of appealed claims 55, 56 and 59 to 72 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
1 We agree with the appellant that the disks shown in Figures 8-12 of the application do have a
substantially conical shape.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007