Appeal No. 1999-0653 Page 16
Application No. 08/226,564
filing date of October 15, 1993 [of the Murray patent]" (first request to strike, page 3) and contains no
evidence of facts which overcome the above-noted deficiencies of the Folise and Igelmund declarations
in establishing due diligence as required by 37 CFR § 1.131(b).
Accordingly, we shall sustain the examiner's rejection of claims 1, 2 and 15 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Murray.
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the decision of the examiner to reject claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 9 and 13 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) and claims 1, 2 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) is affirmed, but the examiner's
decision to reject claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, is reversed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be
extended under 37 CFR § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
LAWRENCE J. STAAB )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
JEFFREY V. NASE ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007