Appeal No. 2004-1142
Application No. 09/892,001
pan dimensions in relation to the central valley of the ‘095
patent should be used in appellant’s invention. Secondly, as
noted by the examiner (Answer, pages 7-8 and 16-17) and not
disputed by appellant, the ‘095 patent does not show the critical
requirements of claim 11 on appeal.
For the foregoing reasons and those stated in the Answer, we
determine that appellant has not established that he should be
accorded the benefit of the effective filing date of June 25,
1999. Accordingly, we agree with the examiner that Tolchiner is
available as prior art against the claims on appeal.
C. The Rejection over Wakat in view of Jackson
Appellant merely reiterates the same argument against
Jackson as argued against Wakat, namely that Jackson discloses a
dual head roller assembly where the roller heads roll
independently (Brief, page 18). As noted by the examiner, this
argument does not address the reasons for combining Wakat and
Jackson (Answer, pages 8-9 and 19-20). Accordingly, we adopt our
discussion about Wakat from above, as well as adopt the
examiner’s findings of fact and conclusion of law from the
combination of Wakat and Jackson as stated in the Answer.
D. Summary
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007