Appeal No. 97-1697
Application No. 08/336,170
Beginning on page 9 of the Brief, appellants argue that
Kurtin does not disclose a flexible elongated operating
member, nor does Kurtin disclose a supporting structure for
the operating member. Appellants are further of the view that
there is no finger operated positioning member in Kurtin for
moving the operating member lengthwise. Finally, in the Reply
Brief, appellants take issue with the examiner's argument that
pin 17 of hinge 16 could be considered part of the support for
the elongated flexible member.
OPINION
We have carefully reviewed the rejection on appeal in
light of the arguments of the appellants and the examiner. As
a result of this review we have reached the determination that
the applied prior art does not anticipate independent claims 1
and 22 on appeal. Therefore, the rejection of all claims on
appeal is reversed. Our reasons follow.
Turning to the appellants' first argument with respect to
the examiner's finding of anticipation, appellants argue that
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007