Ex Parte Cullen - Page 2




            Appeal No. 2002-0032                                                          Page 2              
            Application No. 08/514,507                                                                        


                                               BACKGROUND                                                     
                   This is an application for reissue of U.S. Patent No. 5,899,247, which has been            
            sought on the basis that the appellant claimed less than he had a right to claim in the           
            original application.  The appellant's invention as recited in claim 10 relates to a              
            bagging machine having a non-flexible anchor for resisting the movement of the                    
            machine away from the material being bagged.  The claim has been reproduced in an                 
            appendix to the Brief.                                                                            
                   The prior art reference of record relied upon by the examiner in rejecting the             
            appealed claim is:                                                                                
            Cullen                           5,425,220                       Jun. 20, 1995                    
                   Claim 10 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by                  
            Cullen.                                                                                           
                   Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and              
            the appellant regarding the above-noted rejection, we make reference to the Answer                
            (Paper No. 18) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the rejections, and            
            to the Brief (Paper No. 17) for the appellant's arguments thereagainst.                           
                                                  OPINION                                                     
                   In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to            
            the appellant's specification and claims, to the applied prior art reference, and to the          









Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007