Appeal No. 2004-0478
Application No. 09/768,976
Therefore, we will not sustain the Examiner's rejection
under 35 U.S.C. § 102.
XV. Whether the Rejection of Claim 39 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 39. Accordingly, we reverse.
With respect to dependent claim 39, Appellants argue at page
14 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.
XVI. Whether the Rejection of Claim 40 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 40. Accordingly, we reverse.
With respect to dependent claim 40, Appellants argue at page
14 of the brief by referring back to their arguments with respect
to claim 31. We find that Appellants' argument does overcome the
17
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007