Appeal No. 2000-1608
Application 08/953,998
and distinctly claim the subject matter which Appellant regards
as his invention.
Claims 1-6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) as being
anticipated by Yamada.
We refer to the final rejection (Paper No. 8) (pages
referred to as "FR__") and the examiner's answer (Paper No. 17)
(pages referred to as "EA__") for a statement of the examiner's
position and to the brief (Paper No. 14) (pages referred to as
"Br__") and the reply brief (Paper No. 18) (pages referred to as
"RBr__") for a statement of Appellant's arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
Note
In Fig. 2 of Appellant's drawings, step S42 within step S4
should read "Determine Horizontal angle."
Grouping of claims
The Examiner states that the claims stand or fall together
because there is only one independent claim and because Appellant
has argued throughout the prosecution as though the claims stand
or fall together (EA3).
Appellant notes that claims 2-6 were argued separately in
the brief in connection with the § 103(a) rejection (RBr2).
Regardless of how claims are argued during prosecution, (and
we will not investigate this), Appellant has the right to argue
- 5 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007