Appeal No. 2001-1787
Application 09/374,122
we refer to the final rejection (Paper No. 4, mailed July 20,
2000), the examiner's answer (Paper No. 13, mailed December 28,
2000), to appellant’s brief (Paper No. 12, filed November 27,
2000) and reply brief (Paper No. 14, filed January 31, 2001) for
a full exposition thereof.
OPINION
Having carefully reviewed the anticipation issues raised in
this appeal in light of the record before us, we have made the
determinations which follow.
Looking first to the examiner’s rejection of claims 1
through 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by
Handweller, it is the examiner’s opinion with regard to claims 1
and 4 that Handweller discloses a personal communication tool
comprising “a plurality of sections (fig. 2--Examiner considers
notch 22 as a center point for the walls 16. The upper portion
of walls 16 is the first section and the lower portion of walls
16 is the second section.) configured as claimed” (final
rejection, page 2). In response to appellant’s argument that a
maze as in Handweller is not a labyrinth, the examiner cites a
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007