Appeal No. 2000-2036
Application 08/897,484
examiner has closed, the new claims and the amendments to the
specification will not be considered. We are treating
appellant’s arguments with respect to claim 4 as a request for
rehearing of our original decision under 37 CFR § 1.197.
Claim 4 was rejected by the examiner as anticipated by
the disclosure of Szabo. Appellant argues that Szabo does not
disclose a ferromagnetic tube as claimed. Appellant also makes
additional arguments which were not specifically made in the
brief on appeal.
With respect to the first argument, the examiner had read
the claimed ferromagnetic tube on the ring-shaped wall 4 of
Szabo. Based on the record before us, we agreed with the
examiner that element 4 of Szabo was a ferromagnetic tube as
claimed. Appellant has still presented no arguments as to why
the ring-shaped wall 4 of Szabo, by itself, is not a
ferromagnetic tube. As interpreted by the examiner, Szabo
discloses a ferromagnetic tube 4 surrounded by a conductor 13.
Appellant did not present any persuasive arguments in the appeal
brief that would demonstrate that the examiner’s findings were
erroneous, and has presented no arguments in this request for
rehearing to that effect.
-2-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007