Appeal No. 2002-1984 Page 7
Application No. 09/438,909
24 and thus, in our opinion, cannot reasonably be considered to be a component of
said gear train. Accordingly, we shall not sustain the rejection of these claims as being
anticipated by Hanley.
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the decision of the examiner to reject claims 1-40 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(e) is affirmed as to claims 1, 2, 7, 11, 12 and 19-40 and reversed as to
claims 3-6, 8-10 and 13-18.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal
may be extended under 37 CFR § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
JOHN P. MCQUADE )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
JEFFREY V. NASE ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
JENNIFER D. BAHR )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007