Appeal No. 97-4056 Page 3
Application No. 08/238,926
BACKGROUND
The appellant's invention relates to a system for cleansing
a harbor or bay. An understanding of the invention can be
derived from a reading of exemplary claims 13 and 20 and a copy
of those claims, as they appear in the appendix to the
appellant's brief, is attached to this decision.
The prior art reference of record relied upon by the
examiner as evidence of anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is:
Parker 833,544 Oct. 16, 1906
Claims 13, 14 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
as being anticipated by Parker.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by
the examiner and the appellant regarding the § 102(b) rejection,
we make reference to the examiner's answer (Paper No. 23, mailed
May 27, 1997) and the supplemental examiner's answer (Paper No.
25, mailed July 21, 1997) for the examiner's complete reasoning
in support of the rejection, and to the appellant's brief (Paper
No. 20, filed March 13, 1997), reply brief (Paper No. 24, filed
June 3, 1997), citations on appeal (Paper No. 26, filed August
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007