Appeal No. 2003-1514 Page 3
Application No. 09/180,038
Claims 11-15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by
Bay.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellants regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the answer
(Paper No. 18) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the rejections and to
the brief and reply brief (Paper Nos. 16 and 19) for the appellants’ arguments
thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
the appellants’ specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellants and the examiner. As a consequence
of our review, we make the determinations which follow.
Turning first to the rejection of claims 1-10 as being unpatentable over Hayamizu
in view of Komatsu, we note that independent claim 1 recites rotary and driven blades,
a blade holder for rotatably holding the rotary and driven blades with a positional
relationship between the two blades kept fixed such that the two blades are always in
contact with each other3 and a rotator for pivotally rotating the blade holder between a
3 We note that page 44, line 13, of appellants’ specification refers to a “gap between the two
blades being kept fixed at a desired value.” As it is clear from the remainder of the specification (see, for
example, page 21, line 18, to page 22, line 3) that the rotary and driven blades, though not coaxial, are in
face-to-face contact with one another at all times, we understand the term “gap” as used in appellant’s
specification as referring to the offset of the rotational axes of the blades.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007