Appeal No. 2002-1908
Application 09/097,013
direction different from a direction in which the chip parts are
discharged when chip parts are contained in said least one chute
groove and when said clogging-removing means in moved in a
direction away from the discharge passage.
THE REJECTIONS
Claims 1 through 3, 5 through 7 and 9 through 11 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(f) as being anticipated by U.S.
Patent No. 6,161,676 to Takahashi et al. (Takahashi ‘676).
Claim 4 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Takahashi ‘676 in view of U.S. Patent No.
2,078,659 to Gualtiere.
Claim 8 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Takahashi ‘676 in view of U.S. Patent No.
4,057,137 to Hansen et al. (Hansen).
Claim 4 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph, as being based on a non-enabling specification.
Claims 1, 2 and 8 through 11 stand rejected under the
judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting
over the claims in U.S. Patent No. 6,112,937 to Takahashi et al.
(Takahashi ‘937).
Attention is directed to the appellants’ main and reply
briefs (Paper Nos. 25 and 28) and to the examiner’s final
rejection (Paper No. 21) and main and supplemental answers (Paper
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007