Appeal No. 2001-2696
Application No. 08/950,230
Claims 1-5 and 7-12, all of the appealed claims, stand
finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) as being anticipated by
Cliff.1
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the
Examiner, reference is made to the Briefs2 and Answer for the
respective details.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the subject matter on appeal,
the rejection advanced by the Examiner and the evidence of
anticipation relied upon by the Examiner as support for the
rejection. We have, likewise, reviewed and taken into
consideration, in reaching our decision, Appellants’ arguments
set forth in the Briefs along with the Examiner’s rationale in
support of the rejection and arguments in rebuttal set forth in
the Examiner’s Answer.
It is our view, after consideration of the record before us,
that the Cliff reference does not fully meet the invention as set
1 At page 2 of the Answer, the Examiner indicates that the 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, first paragraph, rejection of claims 7 and 8 has been withdrawn.
2 The Appeal Brief was filed November 20, 2000 (Paper No. 9). In
response to the Examiner’s Answer dated February 13, 2001 (Paper No. 10), a
Reply Brief was filed April 17, 2001 (Paper No. 11), which was acknowledged
and entered by the Examiner as indicated in the communication dated July 3,
2001 (Paper No. 12).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007