Appeal No. 2003-1402
Application No. 09/034,969
fueling operation.” Smith at col. 9, ll. 61-68. The embodiment of Figure 8 contains
structures in common with the embodiment of Figures 6 and 7, described at column 7,
line 28 et seq. of the reference. As a further example of error, the rejection refers to the
fuel dispenser of Figure 8 in combination with “second remote communications
electronics” alleged to be described by Figure 3. However, figures 1a, 1b, 3, and 4
relate to the “first embodiment” of the invention. Smith at col. 4, ll. 4-5.
Thus, even if Smith were regarded as disclosing individual elements identical to
those of the instant claims, the reference has not been shown to disclose the
combinations that are claimed. The rejection thus falls short of establishing a prima
facie case for anticipation over Smith. We thus do not sustain the rejection of claims 1-
10, 14, 15, 17-19, 25, 26, and 30-32 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being anticipated by
Smith.
Section 103 rejection of claims 11-13, 16, 27, 28, and 29 as being unpatentable
over Smith and Bustos
Claims 11-13 and 16 depend from claim 1. At least for the reason that Bustos
does not remedy the deficiency in the rejection applied against claim 1, we do not
sustain the rejection of claims 11-13 and 16.
Of the remainder of the claims subject to the rejection, claim 27 is independent,
with claims 28 and 29 depending therefrom.
-7-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007