Appeal No. 96-4204
Application 08/148,307
record that appellant’s other arguments with respect to claim 8
are also correct and show error in the examiner’s position.
Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 8 as
anticipated by the disclosure of Albert.
With respect to independent claim 18, appellant makes the
same arguments previously made with respect to claims 1 and 8.
Therefore, for reasons already discussed above, Albert does not
anticipate the invention of claim 18 within the meaning of 35
U.S.C. § 102. Since none of the independent claims is fully met
by Albert as discussed above, none of the dependent claims is
fully met by Albert either. Therefore, we do not sustain the
rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102 of claims 1-4, 7-11, 14, 17
and 18.
With respect to the examiner’s rejection of claims 5, 6,
12, 13, 15, 16, 19 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the examiner’s
errors in interpreting the claim language and in evaluating the
teachings of Albert render the examiner’s § 103 rejections as
being fatally deficient. There is nothing in Albert or Wiegand
which compares to the claimed planar sensor plate having a first
mass and a cantilevered second mass arranged about constraint
points as recited in the claims on appeal. The examiner’s
misinterpretation of the claims and misreading of the prior art
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007