Appeal No. 2001-0226
Application 09/009,122
view (see page 3 in the final rejection), Craig’s drum meets the
claim limitations relating to the main body and Craig’s drum-
rotating motor meets the claim limitations relating to the means
for imparting periodic motion to the main body. As persuasively
argued by the appellant, however, “[c]ontinuous and constant
rotation around an axis is clearly not periodic motion between a
first position and a second position different from said first
position” (brief, pages 7 and 8).
Thus, Craig does not disclose each and every element of the
invention recited in claim 11. Hence, we shall not sustain the
standing 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of claim 11 as being
anticipated by Craig.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007