Appeal No. 1999-0933 Page 7
Application No. 08/512,396
of Willmann does not provide an adequate factual basis to establish that the natural
result flowing from following the teachings of that reference would be a termination
controlling means like that claimed by appellants which functions in the required
manner.
The appellants’ description of the operation of the control device (52) of
Willmann upon completion of the anti-slip control operation is in accordance with
what appellants’ have identified (specification, pages 1-3) as being conventional in
the prior art prior at the time of appellants’ invention and, thus, is at least as likely to
be a correct understanding of the disclosure in Willmann as the examiner’s position,
if not more so. Accordingly, since all the limitations of appellants’ independent claim
1 are not found in Willmann, either expressly or under principles of inherency, it
follows that the examiner's rejection of claim 1, and of claims 2 through 4, 6 and 8
through 11, which depend therefrom, under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) relying on Willmann will not be sustained.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007