Appeal No. 2000-1354 Page 10
Application No. 08/894,129
The appellants argue (brief, p. 12; reply brief, pp. 3-4)
that Morita fails to disclose each and every element recited
in claim 29. Specifically, the appellants assert that the
claimed "lower transfer means for driving said lower tool
along said direction in alignment with said upper tool to a
position below said working level, said lower transfer means
further driving said lower tool from said position to said
working level for fabricating said sheet" is not taught by
Morita. We agree. Claim 29 requires that the lower tool be
capable of being positioned below the working level. As set
forth above, Morita's lower tool (i.e., die 45) is not capable
of being positioned below its working level (i.e., the
position shown in Figure 3 of Morita). Thus, the claimed
lower transfer means is not taught by Morita.
Since all the limitations of claim 29 are not disclosed
by Morita, the decision of the examiner to reject claim 29,
and claims 30 to 33 dependent thereon, under 35 U.S.C. §
102(b) is reversed.
CONCLUSION
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007