Appeal No. 98-3293
Application 08/650,417
reasoning in support of the rejections, and to appellants’ brief (Paper No. 9, filed February 27, 1998)
and reply brief (Paper No. 12, filed June 5, 1998) for the arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
As a preliminary matter, we observe that on page 3 of the brief appellants have indicated that
the claims on appeal “should be considered as one grouping.” Thus, we have focused only on
independent claim 1 in the following commentary regarding appellants’ appeal, with claims 2 through 6,
8 and 9 standing or falling on the outcome of the appeal as to claim 1.
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to appellants'
specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the respective positions articulated
by appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of our review, we have made the determinations
which follow.
Looking at the examiner's rejection of claims 1 through 3, 8 and 9 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by McSherry, we share the examiner’s view that McSherry discloses
(Figures 1 through 5) a spacer like that defined in appellants’ claim 1 on appeal and that the subject
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007