Appeal No. 1999-0932
Application No. 08/723,889
BACKGROUND
The appellants' invention relates to a disk brake. An understanding of the invention can
be derived from a reading of exemplary claims 1 and 9, which appear in the appendix to the
appellants' brief.2
The sole prior art reference of record relied upon by the examiner in rejecting the
appealed claims is:
Suzuki 5,161,652 Nov. 10, 1992
The following rejection is before us for review.3
Claims 1, 6-9, 11, 14, 15 and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Suzuki.4
Reference is made to the brief and reply brief (Paper Nos. 15 and 18) and the final
rejection and answer (Paper Nos. 7 and 16) for the respective positions of the appellants and
the examiner with regard to the merits of this rejection.
2The copy of claim 8 in the appendix is incorrect, in that it does not reflect the amendment of Paper No.
10.
3The examiner's objection to the drawings relates to a petitionable matter and not to an appealable matter.
See Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) §§ 1002 and 1201. Accordingly, we will not review the first
issue raised by the appellants on page 4 of the brief.
4At the outset, we note that the page numbering in the answer (Paper No. 16) is irregular, in that the first
and second pages are not numbered and the third and fourth pages are labeled pages 2 and 3, respectively. For
clarity in this decision, we shall refer to the first through fourth pages of the answer as pages 1 through 4,
respectively, without regard to the page number printed thereon. Although the examiner has not explicitly re-stated
the rejection in the answer, it is apparent from a reading of pages 2-4 of the answer that the claims stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as set forth in the final rejection.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007