Appeal No. 2002-1641
Application No. 09/276,213
answer (Paper No. 12, mailed October 10, 2001) for the reasoning
in support of the rejections, and to appellant's brief (Paper No.
11, filed July 20, 2001) and reply brief (Paper No. 13, filed
December 17, 2001) for the arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to appellant's specification and claims, to
the applied prior art references, and to the respective positions
articulated by appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of
our review, we have made the determinations which follow.
Turning first to the examiner's rejection of claims 1, 2 and
4 through 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), we note that the
examiner's position is set forth on pages 3 through 7 of the
answer. Regarding the step in method claim 1 of "ascertaining a
tendency of a characteristic of the slippage during the
vibration" and the corresponding limitation in claim 10 to "an
arrangement for ascertaining a tendency of a characteristic of
the slippage during the vibration," the examiner has asserted
that such limitations are "interpreted . . . as merely stating a
33
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007