Appeal No. 97-1775
Application No. 08/500,740
(3) Claims 9 and 10, unpatentable over Evels in view of McGuire,
under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
After fully considering the record in light of the arguments
presented in appellant’s brief and the examiner’s answer, we
conclude that rejection (1) is not sustainable, but that
rejections (2) and (3) will be sustained. The reasons for these
conclusions are given under the relevant headings below.
Rejection (1)
Appellant contends (brief, page 6), that the apparatus
disclosed by Marcusen does not anticipate claim 8 because
Marcusen’s rotating arm (20) is not “rotatably coupled about a
fixed intermediate position between the free ends thereof and a
fixed point on said first means,” as called for by the claim. We
agree. The point about which the arm 20 of Marcusen rotates is
at the center of the circular arc formed by the arm; this point
would be a point in the space encircled by the arm, coinciding
with the center of cup 24, rather being on the first means (i.e.,
on Marcusen’s frame 12).
Rejection (2)
With regard to the Evels reference, appellant argues (brief,
page 6):
The rotating arm in Evels is not rotatably coupled
about an intermediate position between the free ends
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007