Appeal No. 1997-1264
Application 07/882,560
Rather than repeat the arguments of appellant or the
examiner, we make reference to the briefs and the answer for
the respective details thereof.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the subject matter on
appeal, the rejection advanced by the examiner and the
evidence of anticipation relied upon by the examiner as
support for the rejection. We have, likewise, reviewed and
taken into consideration, in reaching our decision, the
appellant’s arguments set forth in the briefs along with the
examiner’s rationale in support of the rejection and arguments
in rebuttal set forth in the examiner’s answer.
It is our view, after consideration of the record
before us, that the disclosure of Guziak does not fully meet
the invention as set forth in the appealed claims.
Accordingly, we reverse.
Appellant has indicated that for purposes of this
appeal the claims will stand or fall together in the following
three groups: Group I has claims 1-15 and 55-67, Group II has
claims 16, 18-31 and 33-54, and Group III has claims 69 and
70. Consistent with this indication appellant has made no
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007