Appeal No. 1999-2831 Page 8
Application No. 08/703,435
It is our opinion that the above-quoted limitation of
claim 1 is not readable on Burnelli for the reasons set forth
by the appellant. In that regard, it is our determination
that none of the roller tracks disclosed by Burnelli (i.e.,
the portions of arms 28 engaged by the rollers 17) are
coextending with rack 29 as required by claim 1.5
Specifically, the roller tracks disclosed by Burnelli do not
extend the same duration as the rack 29 since the roller
tracks are situated lengthwise of the rack rather than being
situated laterally of the rack.
For the reasons set forth above, all the limitations of
claim 1 are not met by Burnelli, accordingly, the decision of
the examiner to reject claim 1, and claims 6 to 8 dependent
thereon, under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is reversed.
4(...continued)
by the court in Kalman it is only necessary for the claims to
"'read on' something disclosed in the reference, i.e., all
limitations of the claim are found in the reference, or 'fully
met' by it."
5The American Heritage Dictionary, Second College
Edition, (1982) defines "coextend" as "[t]o extend or cause to
extend through the same space or duration."
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007