Appeal No. 96-2346
Application 08/162,364
claims under this portion of 35 U.S.C., as well as under 35
U.S.C. § 103 has been withdrawn as set forth at page 5 of the
answer.2
Rather than repeat the positions of the appellant and the
examiner, reference is made to the briefs and the answer for
the respective details thereof.
OPINION
We sustain the rejection of claim 22 as being anticipated
under 35 U.S.C. § 102 by Hudson, but reverse the rejection of
dependent claim 28.
With respect to the rejection of claim 22, appellant's
arguments focus only upon the language of claim 22 reciting
that the third portion has an elongated first spur. In our
view, the examiner is correct in characterizing the duct 32 in
the embodiment shown in Figure 3 as comprising an elongated
first spur. Contrary to appellant's assertion at page 8 of
the brief, it is not beyond dispute that duct 32 is wider than
it is long. The claim does not require that the first spur of
We note in passing that claim 37 depends from cancelled claim 21 and2
that claims 38 and 39 in turn depend from claim 37. The examiner has noted
this only with respect to claim 37 at page 5 of the answer as well.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007