Appeal No. 2002-0670
Application 09/416,547
rejection under § 102 is proper. Inasmuch as the examiner did
not fully explain to the appellant that the rejection was an
anticipation rejection based on inherent properties of the
references, we believe that appellant has not been given clear
notice of the basis of the rejection. Accordingly, the
rejections of the examiner are reversed and we will enter new
rejections on the same references under 37 CFR § 1.196(b).
Claims 1 through 3, 6, 7, 14, 16, 18, 19, 23 through 25, 28,
29, 36, 38, 40 and 41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Juvet. See our above findings of fact for the
statements of this rejection.
Claims 1 through 3, 6, 7, 23 through 25, 28 and 29 are
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as clearly anticipated by
Steadman. Again, see our findings of facts made above for an
explanation of how the prior art anticipates these claims.
In summary, the rejections by the examiner of the claims on
appeal are reversed.
Pursuant to our authority under 37 CFR § 1.196(b), we have
entered new rejections of claims 1 through 3, 6, 7, 14, 16, 18,
19, 23 through 25, 28, 29, 36, 38, 40 and 41.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007