Appeal No. 99-1752
Application 08/632,955
102(e) as being anticipated by Tamaki. According to the
examiner (Paper No. 4, page 5), since the forces are applied
“similarly” in Fig. 2 of Tamaki, Tamaki’s forces are as
parallel as the ones in the instant application.
The full text of the examiner’s rejection and response to
the argument presented by appellants appears in the final
rejection and answer (Paper Nos. 4 and 9), while the complete
statement of appellants’ argument can be found in the brief
and reply brief response (Paper Nos. 6 and 10).2
OPINION
In reaching our conclusion on the aniticipation issue
raised in this appeal, this panel of the board has carefully
considered appellants’ specification and claims, the applied
patent and the respective viewpoints of appellants and the
2In response to an order for compliance (Paper No. 12), appellants submitted a
supplement to the appeal brief (Paper No. 13). In that supplement, it is specified that
the real party in interest is the party named in the caption of the brief. Thus, we
understand appellants to mean that the real party is “Dieter Papenhagen et al”.
However, contrary to this indication is the statement in the original specification
(page 1, lines 6,7) that there is an “assignee of the present invention”. This
disparity should be remedied.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007