Appeal No. 2004-0551 Page 11
Application No. 09/393,256
The appellant argues (brief, p. 11) that Weiland does not disclose an open
recess in the probe head communicating with a channel in the shaft. Instead, the
appellant points out that Weiland's channel or bore 18 communicates with a closed
cavity or space 16. The examiner's response to this argument (answer, p. 8) is that
Weiland's shaft 2 with channel 18 communicates with recess 16.
In our view, the claimed "open recess" which communicates with the channel of
the shaft to enable a filling of the open recess with liquid conducted through the channel
is not readable on Weiland's space 16 since space 16 is closed not open as shown in
Figure 1 of Weiland.
Since all the limitations of claim 22 are not disclosed in Weiland for the reasons
set forth above, the decision of the examiner to reject claim 22, and claims 23 to 28
dependent thereon, under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Weiland is
reversed.
The anticipation rejection based on Kurokawa
We sustain the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Kurokawa but not the rejection of claim 9.
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007