Appeal No. 94-3000
Application 07/914,654
Thus, the lifting means is interpreted as including a
specifically placed structure consisting of a body connected
to shafts and a knife-shaped member made of quartz glass, with
an apical angle of less than 100E, or equivalents thereof.
However, we observe that the examiner has not explained, much
less proven, that such structure is described or would have
been suggested by any of the references relied upon by the
examiner. Thus, we are constrained to reverse the examiner's
rejection of apparatus claims 21 through 23.
The decision of the examiner is affirmed-in-part.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR
1.136(a).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
EDWARD C. KIMLIN )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
CAMERON WEIFFENBACH ) BOARD OF
PATENT
13
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007