Appeal No. 2000-1491 Page 4
Application No. 09/067,811
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to the appellants' specification and
claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellants and the
examiner. As a consequence of our review, we make the
determinations which follow.
The 35 U.S.C. § 112 Rejection
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 1 to 7 under
35 U.S.C. § 112.
In the answer, the examiner rejected claims 1 to 7 under
35 U.S.C. § 112 as being based on an inadequate disclosure and
containing new matter. The full explanation of the rejection
(answer, p. 5) is that
All of the claims require the conveying element to be
"formed without electrode material". Applicants referred
to page 8 lines 19-21 and page 13, lines 18-19 for
support of the new claim language. Page 8, lines 19-21
states that there are "no electrodes" in the belt and
page 13, lines 18-19 state that the belt is "formed of
dielectric material". It is the examiner's understanding
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007