Appeal No. 1999-2114
Application 08/821,711
blank 1 to be speculative and unsupported. Accordingly, we
will not sustain the examiner’s rejection of claim 13 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) based on BPS ‘215.
Appellant indicates on page 3 of the brief that
claims 14, 15, 17, 18 and 19 stand or fall with claim 13.
Therefore, the rejection of dependent claims 14 and 15 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 based on BPS ‘215 and dependent claims 17, 18
and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on BPS ‘215 in view of
Stout are also not sustained. With regard to claims 17-19, we
have reviewed the teachings of Stout, but find nothing therein
that provides response for the deficiency noted above in BPS
‘215.
Turning now to the examiner’s prior art rejection of
claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable solely
over BPS ‘215, appellant argues that BPS ‘215 fails to “teach
or make obvious any particular rate of movement for its plate
7,” (brief, page 6) that the examiner’s position provides “no
factual basis” (brief, page 6) on which to reject the claims,
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007