Appeal No. 96-2271
Application 07/995,047
overcome by utilizing the Zeman device with the inner and outer
parts reversed.
The rejection of the claims as being anticipated by Zeman is
not sustained.
With regard to the Sugarbaker rejection of claim 1, we have
carefully considered all of the appellants' arguments, but they
have not persuaded us that the examiner here was in error. Our
position with regard to these arguments should be apparent.
Summary:
The rejection of claim 1 as being anticipated by Sugarbaker
is sustained.
The rejection of claims 2 and 6 through 8 as being
anticipated by Sugarbaker is not sustained.
The rejection of claims 1, 2, 6 through 8 and 11 as being
anticipated by Zeman is not sustained.
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
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007