Appeal No. 97-0040
Application 08/303,065
The subject matter in issue concerns an apparatus for, and
method of, parting-off a rotating workpiece. The claims on
appeal, together with claims 21 and 28, are reproduced in the
appendix to appellant’s brief.
The references applied in the final rejection are:
Balmforth (British patent) 588,052 May 13, 1947
Armstrong (British patent) 2,139,529 Nov. 14, 1984
The claims on appeal stand finally rejected as follows:
(1) Claims 1 to 18, for failing to comply with 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph ; 3
(2) Claims 1 to 8, 10 to 15, 17, 19, 20 and 29, as anticipated
by Balmforth, under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b);
(3) Claims 16 and 22 to 27, as unpatentable over Balmforth in
view of Armstrong, under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
(1) Rejection Under 35 U.S.C. § 112, Second Paragraph
The appellant does not argue this rejection in his brief,
but merely indicates his belief that the rejection would be
overcome if claims 1 and 10 were amended. The rejection will
therefore be sustained.
(2) Rejection Under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
3The examiner did not list this rejection as one of the
grounds of rejection in part (9) of the answer, but this was
evidently an inadvertent omission, in view of his statement in
the first sentence of part (11) of the answer.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007