Appeal No. 2004-2040
Application No. 09/772,985
stabilizing the folded stack with an adhesive. (Column 7, lines
14-17; Figure 10.)
It is clear, therefore, that the examiner has not
adequately established that Paurus describes each and every
limitation of the invention recited in appealed claim 27.
Accordingly, we are constrained to reverse the examiner’s
rejection on this ground.1
For these reasons, we reverse the examiner’s rejection
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) of appealed claims 27 through 30 as
anticipated by Paurus.
1 Upon receipt of this application, the appellant and the
examiner should analyze whether any of the appealed claims
should be rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Paurus.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007