Appeal No. 2002-1185
Application No. 09/112,242
The Examiner relies on the following reference in rejection
the claims:
Leonhardt et al. (Leonhardt) 5,128,815 Jul. 7, 1992
Claims 1, 2, 7, 10, 14, 15, 24 and 25 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Leonhardt.1
Claims 4-6, 8, 9, 11-13 and 16-18 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Leonhardt.2
We refer to the final rejection (Paper No. 8, mailed
August, 4, 2000) and the answer (Paper No. 13, mailed May 22,
2001) for the Examiner’s complete reasoning in support of the
rejections, and to the brief (Paper No. 12, filed February 13,
2001) for Appellants’ arguments thereagainst.
1 The canceled claim 3 is inadvertently listed instead of claim 2 in
the statement of the rejection while claim 26 is omitted from the rejection.
2 In the answer, the Examiner adds a rejection for claim 4 under the
second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 for lack of antecedent basis for the term
“said first movable guide means.” This constitutes a new ground of rejection
which is not permitted under 37 CFR § 1.192(2) (revised July 1, 2000).
Although the above-noted term, indeed lacks antecedent basis in the base
claim, it appears that claim 26, which is dependent upon claim 1 and has been
overlooked by the Examiner, probably provides the antecedent basis for
claim 4. However, we note that Appellants should submit the necessary
amendments to correct the antecedent problem in claim 4 by either adding the
missing element to claim 4 or change its dependency from claim 1 to claim 26.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007