Appeal No. 2002-1792 Page 9
Application No. 09/467,577
Claim 11
The appellant argues (brief, p. 11; reply brief, p. 3) that claim 11 is not
anticipated by Lenhart '423 since the guide rails 22 of Lenhart '423 are not mirror
images of each other. We agree. Since the downstream part of the guide rails 22 of
Lenhart '423 are not shown or described, it is our view that it is not inherent that the
guide rails 22 of Lenhart '423 are mirror images of each other.
Since all the limitations of claim 11 are not disclosed by Lenhart '423 for the
reason set forth above, the decision of the examiner to reject claim 11 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) is reversed.
The obviousness rejections
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 1 to 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Lenhart '307 or the rejection of claims 1 to 19 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Fairman for the reasons set forth by the appellant in
the brief (pp. 12-17 & 20-21) and the reply brief (pp. 3-5).
In both of these rejections (answer, pp. 4-6) the examiner (1) ascertained that
both Lenhart '307 and Fairman did not disclose the recited limitation of an elongated
plate; and (2) concluded that it would have been obvious to have formed the guide rail
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007