Appeal No. 2004-1240
Application No. 09/742,691
Claim 1 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
as being anticipated by AAPA, or in the alternative,
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over AAPA in
view of Budny or Clatterbuck.
Claim 3 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being obvious over AAPA in view of Budny.
Claim 4 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being obvious over AAPA in view of Fischer.
Our reference to appellant’s brief is the brief
filed on August 11, 2003 (Paper No. 21). To the
extent any given claim is separately argued by
appellant, we consider such claim in this appeal. 37
CFR § 1.192 (7) and (8) (2003).
OPINION
For the reasons set forth in the answer, and
below, we affirm each of the rejections.
I. 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)/103 rejection of claim 1
In the instant case, critical to the
determinations made herein, is the meaning of the
phrase “an integrated cutting blade”, which is recited
in claim 1.
Beginning on page 6 of the answer, the examiner
refers to the reproduced image1 (set forth on page 4 of
1 On page 3 of the answer, the examiner indicates that this
image is an image of a prior art dispenser submitted by
appellant.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007