Appeal No. 1999-1751 Page 8
Application No. 08/814,299
surface of an article to be transported upon engagement
therewith.
We agree with the examiner's determination (final
rejection, pp. 2-3, and answer, pp. 5-6) that claim 30 is
anticipated by Laverriere.
We find that the appellant's arguments (brief, pp. 7-8)
as to why claim 30 is not anticipated by Laverriere
unpersuasive for the following reasons.
First, the appellant argues that Laverriere uses closed
cell foam rather than open cell foam. However, claim 30 does
not require that the porous foam member be an open cell foam.
Moreover, Laverriere clearly teaches that his foam 3 is an
open cell foam.3
Second, the appellant argues that suction passes only
through the openings 4 of Laverriere's foam 3. However,
3See, for example, column 3, line 68; column 4, lines 24-
25; and column 5, lines 4-15.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007