Appeal No. 1999-2242
Application No. 08/137,056
Claims 11 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
as being anticipated by Yasukawa.1,2
Claims 12 through 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Yasukawa in view of Church and
Mohiuddin.
The full text of the examiner's rejections and response
to the arguments presented by the appellant appears in the
answer (Paper No. 20), while the complete statement of the
appellant’s arguments can be found in the main and reply
briefs (Paper Nos. 19 and 21, respectively).
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to the appellant’s specification and
claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the
1The reference to canceled claims 2-4 in the examiner’s
statement of this ground of rejection (answer, p. 3) is an
obvious inadvertent error.
2Technically, there is no antecedent basis for the
language “the blade surface” in claim 11. For purposes of our
review, we consider the quoted language to read --a surface of
said blade portion--. Correction of this informality is in
order upon return of the application to the jurisdiction of
the examiner.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007