Appeal No. 1997-2859
Application 08/340,676
determined on the basis of the evidence as a whole and the
relative persuasiveness of the arguments. See In re Oetiker,
977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992); In
re Hedges, 783 F.2d 1038, 1039, 228 USPQ 685, 686 (Fed. Cir.
1986); In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1472, 223 USPQ 785, 788
(Fed. Cir. 1984); and In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 1052, 189
USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA 1976).
Analysis
At the outset, we point out that we will treat
individually only those claims which have been argued by
Appellants separately.
Rejection of claims 15 to 16, 18 to 20 and 22 to 24
These claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being
anticipated by Hilton. We first take the broadest claim, 23.
The Examiner asserts [final rejection, pages 2 to 3] that
“[t]he patent of Hilton, Sr. discloses the applicants’ claimed
invention as follows: ... " Appellants argue [brief, pages 4
to 8 and reply brief, pages 1 to 3] that “independent claim 23
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007