Appeal No. 2001-0252
Application 08/760,652
We turn next to the examiner's rejection of claim 30
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Geluk. In
this instance, appellant has presented arguments on pages 10
and 11 of the brief and on pages 8 and 9 of the reply brief
which we find persuasive. Like appellant, we consider the
examiner’s position equating “the center spot on the screen”
in Geluk (answer, page 4) to appellant’s “guide” set forth in
claim 30 to be untenable. Unlike appellant’s guide seen in
Figures 4A, 4B of the present application, the imaginary
center spot identified by the examiner on the screen (2) of
Geluk is not capable of “guiding the transparency into a
predetermined mounting position” as at (42) of Figure 4A, or
of cooperating with a second transparency having a second
predetermined mounting position (44 in Fig. 4A) as is set
forth in appellant’s claim 30 so that the guide “separates and
determines the two predetermined mounting positions.” As for
the examiner’s position (answer, page 8) that appellant “fails
to define any structure with regard to the guide,” we find
this position to be in error, since the limitation as set
forth in claim 30 on appeal with regard to the “guide” would
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007