Appeal No. 2001-1077
Application No. 09/051,506
Lastly, and for similar reasons, we also do not sustain the
Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) rejection of independent claim 9 and
dependent claims 10, 11, and 13-17 as being anticipated by Sitar.
The Examiner has not provided any evidence to support the
conclusion that the asymmetrical structure of Sitar’s magnetic
chamber base 22 results in the magnet supporting strip (identified
by the Examiner as spring member 36) as having first and second
magnet supporting areas with differing elastic resiliency.
In summary, we have not sustained any of the Examiner’s
rejections of the claims on appeal. Therefore, the decision of
the Examiner rejecting claims 9-17 is reversed.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007