Appeal No. 2004-0478
Application No. 09/768,976
With respect to dependent claim 27, Appellants at pages 10-
11 of the brief repeat the arguments they made with respect to
claims 1 and 24. We find that Appellants' arguments do 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.
VII. Whether the Rejection of Claim 28 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 28. Accordingly, we affirm.
With respect to dependent claim 28, Appellants argue at page
11 of the brief by referring back to their arguments with respect
to claim 27. 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.
11
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007