Appeal No. 96-1899
Application No. 07/936,007
OPINION
The grounds of rejection set forth in the final rejection in
this application were withdrawn in the Examiner’s Answer.
Pursuant to new grounds of rejection set forth in the Examiner’s
Answer, Claims 1, 2, 4, 8, 9, and 11 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 102 as anticipated by admitted prior art and Claim 3
stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
admitted prior art in view of Kuperman.
The admitted prior art
Appellants acknowledge that the device illustrated in their
Figure 8 is prior art as asserted by the examiner. Response,
November 19, 1994 (Paper No. 12) at 4, line 1; Letter, March 1,
1996 (Paper No. 21). Thus, the application’s disclosure
regarding the conventional device illustrated in Figure 8 is
available as prior art. In re Nomiya, 509 F.2d 566, 571 n.5, 184
USPQ 607, 611 n.4 (CCPA 1975) (both footnotes are the same,
despite the different numbering); In re Hellsund, 474 F.2d 1307,
1311, 177 USPQ 170, 173 (CCPA 1973).
Relevant disclosure of the admitted prior art device is
found in Figure 8 and dispersed throughout the Specification.
The admitted prior art device is identified in the Specification
as the “conventional” apparatus.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007