Appeal No. 97-3064
Application 08/235,332
in the preamble] longitudinally toward the processing station
. . . .” There is absolutely nothing in Wittle which would
either teach or suggest a strip having such a cross section.
Throughout Whittle’s disclosure the strip only broadly
referred to as a “film,” with no disclosure whatsoever as to
its lateral cross section. Since each and every feature set
forth in claim 1 cannot be found in Wittle, either explicitly
or under the principles of inherency, we will not sustain the
rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Wittle.
In summary:
The rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is
reversed.
The rejection of claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is
affirmed.
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
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007