Appeal No. 1997-4385
Application No. 08/288,864
disposed adjacent an inlet opening for defining an inlet
passage.
Since every feature of claim 25 is not disclosed by
Evans, Suzuki or Kalen, the claim is not anticipated by any of
the applied references. Claims 26 through 29 depend from
claim 25 and include all the limitations of that claim. Thus,
the
§ 102(b) rejections of claims 25 through 29 based on Evans,
Suzuki and Kalen will not be sustained.
SUMMARY
The decision of the examiner to reject claims 19 through
24 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Dewitz is
affirmed. The decision of the examiner to reject claims 25
through 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by
Evans or Suzuki or Kalen is reversed.
The decision of the examiner is affirmed-in-part.
15
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007