Appeal No. 2000-0204
Application No. 08/512,068
filed June 18, 1999) for a full exposition thereof.
0PINION
Having carefully reviewed the anticipation issue raised
in this appeal in light of the record before us, we have come
to the conclusion that the examiner's rejection of appealed
claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) will be sustained. Our
reasoning in support of this determination follows.
The only argument raised by appellant in this appeal
(brief, pages 6-10) is that Bolinger does not anticipate
appellant's presently claimed wick holding grate because the
wording of claim 13 "with the addition of a whereby clause
which narrows claim 13 down to a candle wick holding grate
that-'can be shipped along with the candles as part of the
shipping container' distinguishes the present invention over
all prior art" (brief, page 8). In this regard, appellant
recognizes (brief, pages 7-8) that the Bolinger element or
grate (36) and the grate of claim 13 on appeal are similar,
but urges that Bolinger does not recognize or teach that
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007