Ex parte ARRIS et al. - Page 5




          Appeal No. 1998-2501                                                        
          Application No. 08/534,149                                                  


          direction of insertion and that the two edge walls that are                 
          not transverse are the two edge walls that are parallel to the              
          direction of insertion.  The examiner is correct in the                     
          assertion that only two edge walls of the cartridge are not                 
          transverse to the direction of insertion and that these edge                
          walls are the ones parallel to the direction of insertion.                  
          However, the edge wall on which the opening covered by the                  
          door is located is, indeed, one of those parallel edge walls                
          in Kukreja.  Accordingly, Kukreja does not anticipate the                   
          subject matter of instant claim 15.                                         


               We note that Kukreja does not even suggest any                         
          modification or alternative location for the door but, rather,              
          discloses only an end-loaded type of cartridge so Kukreja does              
          not appear even to contemplate the instant claimed subject                  
          matter.                                                                     
               The examiner’s decision rejecting claim 15 under 35                    
          U.S.C.                                                                      
           102(b) is reversed.                                                       


                                      REVERSED                                        
                                         -5-                                          





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007