Appeal No. 1997-1317
Application No. 08/371,995
Appellant's final argument that Strauch "lack[s] all
the claimed crucial elements of the present claims" (Brief at
14) is unconvincing because appellant has not explained which
claimed feature or features do not appear in the reference.
For the foregoing reasons, the § 102 rejection based
on Strauch is affirmed with respect to claim 1.
Turning now to dependent claims 2-12, appellant
describes the limitations of these claims (Brief at 11-13) and
argues that none of these limitations are disclosed in Strauch
(Brief at 13). The examiner dismissed this portion of the
brief as "merely a redacted version of the claims under
appeal" (Answer at 5) and did not address any of these
limitations. In our view, this dismissal was unjustified,
because the final rejection fails to explain how the
limitations of claims 2-12 read on Strauch. Under these
circumstances, appellant's denial that these limitations are
disclosed in Strauch should have been met with an explanation
of how they are satisfied by the reference. The examiner's
failure to provide such an explanation with respect to any of
claims 2-12 means the § 102 rejection of those claims based on
Strauch cannot be sustained.
- 8 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007