Appeal No. 1999-2211 Page 11
Application No. 08/620,427
argument (brief, page 7) that "any relatively slight tipping
of element 22 of the Bott patent would cause the tubing of the
stethoscope, if not the entire stethoscope, to be dislodged
and fall from element 22 of the Bott patent.” Accordingly, we
find that claim 8 is so broadly drafted as to read on Bott in
an unintended fashion. The rejection of claim 8 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(e) is therefore affirmed.
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the decision of the examiner to reject
claims 7, 8, and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by
Collins is reversed. The rejection of claim 8 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) as anticipated by Bott is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR
§ 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
LEE E. BARRETT )
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007