Appeal No. 2003-1359 9
Application No. 09/285,260
Likewise, the examiner has not established that the arrangement of Phillips is a
35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph, equivalent of any of the embodiments disclosed by
appellants for accomplishing the functions recited in the last paragraph of claim 24.
Hence, appellants’ argument (main brief, page 11) in this regard with respect to claim 24
also is well taken, thereby providing a further basis for not sustaining the anticipation
rejection of claims 24 and 28 based on Phillips.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007