Appeal No. 1999-1740 Page 6
Application No. 08/799,433
line of weakness" for "permitting the second leg to be
separated from the base."
The examiner's anticipation rejection (answer, pp. 4 and
5-6) is founded on the basis that the claimed "line of
weakness" is readable on the slit 16 in Omura's glass run (see
Figure 8). Specifically, the examiner states (answer, p. 5)
that Omura discloses "a slit or line of weakness which is
taught to be ripped or torn." We do not agree. We have
reviewed the entire disclosure of Omura and fail to find any
teaching therein that Omura's slit is "ripped or torn."
Accordingly, we find ourselves in agreement with the
appellant's argument (brief, pp. 4-6, 8 and 12-13) that Omura
does not disclose "a line of weakness" as recited in the
claims under appeal.
Since all the limitations of claims 1 to 4, 6 to 8 and 10
to 14 are not disclosed in Omura for the reasons stated above,
the decision of the examiner to reject claims 1 to 4, 6 to 8
and 10 to 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is reversed.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007