Appeal No. 1999-1484
Application No. 07/963,109
No. 42), while the complete statement of appellants’ argument can
be found in the brief (Paper No. 41).
OPINION
In reaching our conclusion on the issue raised in this
appeal, this panel of the board has carefully considered
appellants’ specification and claims, the patent to Freidmann and
Zapf, and the respective viewpoints of appellants and the
examiner. As a consequence of our review, we make the
determination which follows.
We do not sustain the rejection of appellants’ claims under
35 U.S.C. § 102(f).
According to 35 U.S.C. § 102(f), a person shall be entitled
to a patent unless he did not invent the subject matter sought to
be patented.
The examiner relies upon Fig. 1 of the patent to Freidmann
and Zapf in concluding that appellants Jackel and Reik did not
invent the subject matter now sought to be patented. It is
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007