Appeal No. 2004-0478
Application No. 09/768,976
VIII. Whether the Rejection of Claim 29 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 29. Accordingly, we affirm.
With respect to dependent claim 29, Appellants argue at
pages 11-12 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.
IX. Whether the Rejection of Claim 30 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 not fully meet the invention as
recited in claim 30. Accordingly, we reverse.
With respect to dependent claim 30, Appellants argue at page
12 of the brief by referring back to their arguments with respect
to claim 20. We find that this argument does not overcome the
Examiner's prima facie showing of anticipation as discussed above
with respect to claims 1 and 24.
12
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007