Appeal No. 97-4048
Application 08/371,934
the examiner’s reasoning on pages 8 and 9 of the answer as our
own and sustain the rejection of claim 19 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) based on Rummer.
Appellants’ argument on pages 4 and 5 of their brief
appears to misapprehend the examiner’s position regarding the
reading of claim 19 on Rummer. In this regard, we note that
it is only the chamfer cutting stroke of Rummer which the
examiner relies upon to meet the steps of appellants’ claim
19, and not the later movement of the cutting blade therein
from the angled to the vertical position, as appellants seem
to believe.
With respect to the above-noted rejections, we observe
that the law of anticipation does not require that the
reference specifically teach what the appellants have
disclosed and are
claiming but only that the claims on appeal "read on"
something disclosed in the reference, i.e., all limitations of
the claim or claims are found in the reference. See Kalman
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007