Appeal No. 2003-0304
Application 09/703,302
Appellant’s contentions (brief, pages 10-11) that claims 15
and 16 are “similar to claim 1” and that the arguments applicable
to claim 1 apply equally as well to claims 15 and 16, are not
persuasive. As we have demonstrated above, claims 15 and 16 are
of an entirely different scope than claim 1 on appeal and those
claims are readable on the prior art engine of Mirville.
As a result of the foregoing, we will sustain the examiner’s
rejection of claims 15 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Mirville.
In accordance with appellant’s grouping of the claims on
page 3 of the brief, we find that claims 17 through 19 will fall
with claim 16, from which they depend. Thus, the examiner’s
rejection of claims 17 through 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Mirville is also sustained.
It follows from the above determinations that the decision
of the examiner rejecting claims 1 through 14 of the present
application under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is reversed, while the
decision rejecting claims 15 through 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007