Appeal No. 97-4165
Application No. 08/596,553
that the probe not only is lower in height than the lip, but also
is directly beneath its perimeter. See pages 7 and 8 and Figure
7. It is clear to us from our study of Suga that the probes are3
spaced laterally from the lips of the trays and are not within
their perimeters (see Figure 3). It therefore is our view that
the “inserting” step recited in claim 1 is not disclosed or
taught by Suga, and thus the subject matter of the claim is not
anticipated by this reference. It follows, of course, that the
dependent claims also are not anticipated by Suga.
SUMMARY
The rejection of claims 1 and 2 stand under the judicially
created doctrine of double patenting is sustained.
The rejection of claims 1-5 as being anticipated by Suga is
not sustained.
A rejection of claims 1 and 2 having been sustained, the
decision of the examiner is affirmed-in-part.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under
37 CFR § 1.136(a).
3On page 7 of the specification, reference is made on line
19 to Figure 9, whereas it would appear that it should read “7.”
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007