Appeal No. 2001-2073
Application No. 09/098,799
understand the scope and content of appellant's claim 14 on
appeal. More particularly, we direct the examiner's attention to
the explanation set forth by appellant on page 13 of the brief as
one example of how the above-noted claim language is readable on
the embodiment seen in Figure 6B. Accordingly, we will not
sustain the examiner's rejection of claim 14 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, second paragraph.
We next look to the examiner's prior art rejections,
beginning with the rejection of claims 1 through 6 and 9 through
19 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Graham. In
the paragraph bridging pages 13 and 14 of the brief appellant
sets forth a synopsis of the examiner's position and concludes
that "[a]pplicant agrees with the Examiner's position" and that
"[t]he rejection is, therefore, proper." In light of this
concession on appellant's part, we summarily sustain the
examiner's rejection of claims 1 through 6 and 9 through 19 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Graham.
We next look to the examiner's rejection of claims 1, 2, 9
through 11, 13, 18 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Amoils. On page 14 of the brief (Issue 9),
1010
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007