Appeal No. 2004-0825
Application 09/954,786
Under these circumstances and for the reasons expressed
by the examiner, the § 102 rejection of claim 21 as being
anticipated by Brown also is hereby sustained.
Concerning the “Pesticide” reference, the last
paragraph of this reference contains the following disclosure:
There are substitutes for lead and zinc
sinkers that are not affected by the rule,
and can be used instead, EPA said. These
include sinkers made of tin, steel, antimony,
bismuth, tungsten and a terpene resin putty.
In support of his nonanticipation position, the
appellants argue that this disclosure does not indicate whether
the sinkers are made from a combination of the listed materials
or from each material in a non-alloyed condition. The appellants
also argue that the disclosure constitutes “a laundry listing of
possible materials that sinkers can be made from . . . [which]
does not place applicant’s independent claim 20 ‘in the
possession of the public’ as the cited reference ‘will not
suffice’ as sufficient prior art to enable one skilled in the art
to make applicant’s independent claim 20" (Brief, page 12).
Finally, it is the appellants’ further argument that the
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007