Appeal No. 97-1449
Application 08/395,214
cross-sectional dimension and thereby permit insertion of
the chuck member into a substrate as set forth in appellants'
claim 1. Nor do we see any reason to assume that such a
characteristic is inherent in the deflectable plastic member of
LaRue. For this reason, we must conclude that appellants'
independent claim 1 on appeal is not anticipated by LaRue.
For the same reason as noted above for independent claim 1,
it follows that the examiner's rejection of dependent claims 2, 4
through 7, 9, 10 and 14 on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) will
likewise not be sustained. The § 103 rejection of dependent
claim 19 is premised on the same erroneous factual basis as was
applied to claim 1 and the additional teachings pointed to by the
examiner in Petralia do not overcome the deficiency of LaRue
noted above. Accordingly, the examiner's rejection of claim 19
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 will also not be sustained.
However, under the provisions of 37 CFR § 1.196(b), we enter
the following new grounds of rejection against certain of the
claims on appeal.
Claims 1, 7, 9 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
as being anticipated by Phillips. Phillips discloses an internal
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007