Appeal No. 2000-0941 Page 8
Application No. 09/077,362
Since all the limitations of independent claims 1 and 11
are not disclosed in Cadmus for the reasons set forth above,
the decision of the examiner to reject claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7,
8, 11 and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by
Cadmus is reversed.
The anticipation rejection based on Koller
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 5,
7, 8 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by
Koller.
We find ourselves in agreement with the appellant that
Koller does not anticipate claim 1 for the reasons set forth
in the brief (pages 7-8 and reply brief (pages 3-4). It is
our opinion that claimed limitation that "the additional flat
cloth being rolled up on the roller tube together with the
roller blind cloth when the roller blind cloth is in its
4(...continued)
1994); Valmont Indus. Inc. v. Reinke Mfg. Co., 983 F.2d 1039,
1042, 25 USPQ2d 1451, 1454 (Fed. Cir. 1993); Johnston v. IVAC
Corp., 885 F.2d 1574, 1580, 12 USPQ2d 1382, 1386 (Fed. Cir.
1989).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007