Appeal No. 2004-1599
Application No. 09/784,466
second directions of its movable member are rotational as required
by claim 16, the examiner does not identify any particular
description in Arnold which would have anticipated such subject
matter. Compare the Brief, page 8, with the Answer and the final
Office action in their entirety. Thus, on this record, we are
constrained to agree with the appellant that the examiner has not
establish a prima facie case of anticipation with regard to the
subject matter recited in claim 16.4
CONCLUSION
In summary:
1) The rejection of claims 1 through 7, 15 and 17 through 21
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is affirmed; and
2) The rejection of claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is
reversed.
Accordingly, the decision of the examiner is affirmed-in-part.
4 According to page 5 of the specification, the limitation
recited in claim 16 is said to be a further embodiment of the
claimed invention. Figure 1 does not illustrate this further
embodiment of the claimed invention. However, Figure 3
illustrates an actuator assembly which encompasses this further
embodiment of the claimed invention. It appears that this
further embodiment is directed to a non-elected invention.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007