Appeal No. 2002-1645 Page 22
Application No. 09/281,553
prior art since the limitation of parent claim 18 not met by Engelhart for the reasons
explained above is not suggested by the applied prior art. Thus, it follows that the
examiner's rejection of claims 17 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is not sustained.
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the decision of the examiner to reject claims 1 to 10, 12 to 15, 18
and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Engelhart is affirmed with
respect to claims 1, 2, 5 to 10, 12 and 13 and reversed with respect to claims 3, 4, 14,
15, 18 and 19; the decision of the examiner to reject claims 12 to 15 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Sorrell is reversed; the decision of the examiner to
reject claims 1, 2, 5 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Haruyama
is affirmed; and the decision of the examiner to reject claims 11, 17 and 20 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Engelhart in view of Fochs is affirmed with
respect to claim 11 and reversed with respect to claims 17 and 20.
Page: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007