Appeal No. 1999-0298
Application No. 08/486,780
The invention relates to a picture image recording device.
In particular, Appellants disclose on page 37 of the
specification that upon completion of recording on the innermost
track of the disc 11, the protrusion 76 provided on the fore end
of the counting member 72 comes to open the end switch SWE and
the power supply to the whole circuit system is cut off.
The reference relied on by the Examiner is:
Adcock 4,057,830 Nov. 08, 1977
Claims 32 through 36 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
as anticipated by Adcock.1
Rather than repeat the arguments of Appellants and the
Examiner, we make reference to the briefs2 and the answer for the
respective details thereof.
OPINION
Upon careful review of the record, we will not sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 32 through 36 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102. In the brief and reply brief, Appellants argue that
1 The Examiner has withdrawn the rejection of claims 32 through 36 (see,
Paper No. 24, mailed May 7, 2002) under the judicially created doctrine of
double patenting based on In re Schneller, following a remand by the Board to
consider and respond to the rejection as per MPEP § 804 (8th ed., Aug. 2001).
2 Appellants filed an appeal brief on December 1, 1997 (Paper No. 17).
Appellants filed a reply brief on April 13, 1998 (Paper No. 19). The Examiner
mailed an office communication on June 25, 1998 (Paper No. 20) stating the
reply brief had been entered and considered.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007