Appeal No. 2003-0209
Application No. 394,390
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to appellants' specification and claims, to
the applied prior art reference, and to the respective positions
articulated by appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of
our review, we have made the determination which follows.
Having reviewed and evaluated the applied Anderson
reference, we are of the opinion that the examiner's position in
1965 regarding the purported anticipation or obviousness of claim
11 on appeal improperly disregarded the details of the "means for
selectively controlling" set forth in clause (c) of appellants'
claim. In that regard, we do not share the examiner's view that
the "whereby" clause associated with the "means for selectively
controlling" of claim 11 can be disregarded, because, contrary to
the examiner's position, we find that the "whereby" clause
imposes certain structural limitations on the "means for
selectively controlling" that are not found in Anderson.
44
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007