Appeal No. 2002-1169
Application No. 09/252,845
The references relied on by the examiner are:
Bright et al. (Bright) 5,262,652 Nov. 16, 1993
Gwinn 5,962,858 Oct. 5, 1999
(filed Jul. 10, 1997)
Claims 1, 3 through 6, 11, 13, 15, 16, 21 and 221 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Gwinn.
Claims 2, 7 through 10, 12 and 17 through 20 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Gwinn in view
of Bright.
Reference is made to the briefs (paper numbers 17 and 20)
and the answer (paper number 18) for the respective positions of
the appellants and the examiner.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the entire record before us,
and we will reverse the anticipation rejection of claims 1, 3
through 6, 11, 13, 15, 16, 21 and 22, and the obviousness
rejection of claims 2, 7 through 10, 12 and 17 through 20.
Among the examiner’s findings (answer, page 4) is the
statement that “[s]ince the Gwinn apparatus is identical to the
apparatus disclosed in the instant application, some of the noble
1 The statement of the rejection (answer, pages 3 and 4)
should have included claims 21 and 22 among the claims found to
be anticipated by Gwinn.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007