Appeal No. 97-0445
Application 08/170,020
sustain the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of claim 1 over
Hasegawa.
Claim 4 depends on claim 1 and additionally calls
for “where the holders are substantially circular ...
movement” [lines 1 to 3]. Hasegawa clearly shows that in
figures 1 and 2 where element 2 forms the axis of rotation.
Thus, the anticipation rejection of claim 4 over Hasegawa is
sustained.
With respect to claims 7 and 8, Hasegawa shows
“means for relative motion ... on the assembly” [claim 7,
lines 1 to 2] and “are pivotally mounted ... and ... moved.”
[Claim 8, lines 1 to 3] in the form of elements 14 and 19 in
figures 1, 5 and 6, column 3, lines 45 to 58. Thus, we
sustain the anticipation rejection of claims 7 and 8 over
Hasegawa.
Rejection of Claims 2, 5 and 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
These claims are rejected as being obvious over
Hasegawa. We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection and
response [answer, pages 4 to 6 and 9 to 10] and Appellant’s
argument
-8-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007