Appeal No. 2002-1792 Page 8
Application No. 09/467,577
falling together.3 Thereby, in accordance with 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7), claims 2, 3, 5, and
6 fall with claim 1 and claims 12, 13, 15 and 16 fall with claim 10. Thus, it follows that
the decision of the examiner to reject claim 2, 3, 5, 6, 12, 13, 15 and 16 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is also affirmed.
Claims 9 and 19
The appellant argues (brief, pp. 10-12) that claims 9 and 19 are not anticipated
by Lenhart '423 since the guide rails 22 of Lenhart '423 do not have upstream and
downstream edges which are parallel to each other. We agree. While we believe that
it is inherent that the guide rail 22 of Lenhart '423 has a downstream edge, it is our view
that it is not inherent that such downstream edge be parallel to the upstream edge
depicted in Figure 1.
Since all the limitations of claims 9 and 19 are not disclosed by Lenhart '423 for
the reason set forth above, the decision of the examiner to reject claims 9 and 19 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is reversed.
3 See pages 8 and 11 of the appellant's brief.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007