Appeal No. 1999-2788
Application No. 08/910,469
page 4).
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced
by the examiner and appellant regarding the above-noted
rejection, we refer to the examiner's answer (Paper No. 19,
mailed November 4, 1998) and to appellant's brief (Paper No.
18, filed September 9, 1998) for a full exposition thereof.
0PINION
Having carefully reviewed the anticipation and
obviousness issues raised in this appeal in light of the
record before us, we have come to the conclusion that the
examiner's rejections of the appealed claims under both 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) and 35 U.S.C. § 103 will not be sustained.
Our reasoning in support of these determinations follows.
The only argument raised by appellant in this appeal
(brief, pages 4-5) is that Davison does not anticipate or
render obvious appellant's presently claimed ultrasonic
cutting blade because the Davison patent does not teach or
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007