Appeal No. 2004-1602
Application No. 09/954,766
Claims 1-3, 6 and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
as anticipated by Rodriguez (Answer, page 4). Claims 4-5 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Rodriguez in
view of Orii (id.). Claims 7-9, 11 and 12 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Rodriguez (Answer, page 5).
We affirm all of the rejections on appeal essentially for the
reasons stated in the Answer and those reasons set forth below.
OPINION
A. The Rejection under § 102(b)
The examiner finds that Rodriguez discloses a free-standing
coil reel hold-down device 266 comprising a base plate 268 secured
to floor 42, a pivotal snubber arm 270 mounted to the base plate,
with the snubber arm 270 having two sections disposed at an obtuse
angle with respect to each other, and a stand-alone means 274 for
effecting a pivoting movement of the snubber arm relative to the
base plate (Answer, page 4, citing Figure 9 of Rodriguez as well as
col. 10, ll. 6-7, 9-11 and 11-14).
Appellants argue that Rodriguez does not contain each and
every element of the claimed invention (Brief, page 4).
Specifically, appellants argue that Rodriguez does not disclose a
“Snubber Arm Including a First Section and a Second Section” as
required by claim 1 since the reference features a one-piece
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007