Appeal No. 2003-0222
Application 09/555,910
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to appellants’ specification and claims, to
the applied prior art Sanctuary reference, and to the respective
positions articulated by appellants and the examiner. As a
consequence of our review, we have made the determinations which
follow.
We look first to the examiner’s rejection of claims 11, 13,
14 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by
Sanctuary. In the final rejection mailed February 13, 2002
(Paper No. 15), the totality of the examiner’s statement with
regard to claims 11, 13, 14 and 17 is that such claims are
“rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being clearly anticipated
by Sanctuary.” No attempt at all was made by the examiner to
read the claims rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) on the ball
valve structure of Sanctuary. In the Response to Arguments
section of the final rejection, the examiner provides the
following commentary:
It is the opinion of the Examiner that the ball structure
disclosed, much less the claimed, does not overcome the
invention of Sanctuary. The structure is virtually
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007