Appeal No. 2004-0478
Application No. 09/768,976
With respect to dependent claim 35, Appellants argue at
pages 12-13 of the brief by referring back to their arguments
with respect to claim 31. We find that Appellants' argument does
overcome the Examiner's prima facie showing of anticipation as
discussed above with respect to claims 31.
Therefore, we will not sustain the Examiner's rejection
under 35 U.S.C. § 102.
XII. Whether the Rejection of Claim 36 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 36. Accordingly, we reverse.
With respect to dependent claim 36, Appellants argue at page
13 of the brief by referring back to their arguments with respect
to claim 31. We find that Appellants' argument does overcome the
Examiner's prima facie showing of anticipation as discussed above
with respect to claims 31.
Therefore, we will not sustain the Examiner's rejection
under 35 U.S.C. § 102.
15
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007