Appeal No. 2000-1472
Application No. 08/855,104
the fact that the “shim” 224a is shorter than the outer edge
of aperture 222 is of no moment. Hence, the claim does not
read on the embodiment shown in Figure 3 of Axthammer.
In view of the above, we will not sustain the rejection
of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by
Axthammer.
Claims 2 through 4 are dependent on claim 1 and contain
all of the limitations of that claim. Therefore, we will also
not sustain the rejection of claims 2 through 4 under 35
U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Axthammer.
The § 103(a) rejection
Since neither Ivers nor the APA cures the above noted
deficiencies of Axthammer with respect to the subject matter
recited in independent claim 1, we also will not sustain the
standing 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of dependent claim 5.
CONCLUSION
In summary, the examiner’s decision to reject claims 1
through 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. §
103 is reversed.
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007