Ex parte BRUNER et al. - Page 3




                 Appeal No. 96-1605                                                                                                                     
                 Application No. 07/887,629                                                                                                             


                 lesser diameter will be urged by the protrusion though the                                                                             
                 aperture and into the secondary race to thus separate the                                                                              
                 coins of lesser diameter from the coins of the larger, first                                                                           
                 diameter.                                                                                                                              
                          Claim 2 recites that the secondary race is connected to                                                                       
                 the above-mentioned aperture and is dimensioned to retain                                                                              
                 coins in a substantially on-edge orientation. Claim 2 also                                                                             
                 recites that the means for applying the lateral force pivots                                                                           
                 the coin in the primary race to align the leading edge of the                                                                          
                 coin with the above-mentioned aperture.                                                                                                
                          A copy of appealed claims 2 and 3 is appended to                                                                              
                 appellants’ brief.                                                                                                                     
                          The following reference is relied upon by the examiner as                                                                     
                 evidence of anticipation in support of his rejection under 35                                                                          
                 U.S.C. § 102(b):                                                                                                                       
                 French patent           2                                      469,837                             Aug. 12,                            
                 1914                                                                                                                                   





                          2A translation of this reference is attached to                                                                               
                 appellants’ brief.                                                                                                                     
                                                                           3                                                                            





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007