Appeal No. 2004-0478
Application No. 09/768,976
to claim 24. We find that Appellants' argument does not overcome
the Examiner's prima facie showing of anticipation as discussed
above with respect to claims 1 and 24.
Therefore, we will sustain the Examiner's rejection under
35 U.S.C. § 102.
V. Whether the Rejection of Claim 26 Under 35 U.S.C. § 102
is proper?
It is our view, after consideration of the record before us,
that the disclosure of Arya does fully meet the invention as
recited in claim 26. Accordingly, we affirm.
With respect to dependent claim 26, Appellants argue at page
10 of the brief by referring back to their arguments with respect
to claim 24. We find that Appellants' argument does not overcome
the Examiner's prima facie showing of anticipation as discussed
above with respect to claims 1 and 24.
Therefore, we will sustain the Examiner's rejection under
35 U.S.C. § 102.
VI. Whether the Rejection of Claim 27 Under 35 U.S.C. § 102
is proper?
It is our view, after consideration of the record before us,
that the disclosure of Arya does fully meet the invention as
recited in claim 27. Accordingly, we affirm.
10
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007