Appeal No. 2005-0187
Appeal No. 09/758,513
Attention is directed to the main and reply briefs (filed
October 6, 2003 and February 6, 2004) and the answer (mailed
December 11, 2003) for the respective positions of the appellant
and the examiner regarding the merits of this rejection.2
DISCUSSION
Huber discloses a monitoring device which is described in
the reference as follows:
[t]he device comprises a scanning head 10 and a
controller 12. The scanning head 10 is attached
directly to the object to be monitored or to the
process area to be monitored, for example, next to the
tool to be monitored, e.g. a drill, of a machine tool.
The controller 12 can be disposed at a distance in
order to be protected, for example, from the assault of
chips, coolant and lubricant. The scanning head 10 and
the controller 12 are connected together via a cable
14.
2 We consider the appealed rejection to be made under 35
U.S.C. § 102(e) rather than under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) as stated by
the examiner. The instant application has a U.S. filing date of
January 11, 2001 and a unchallenged claim made pursuant to 35
U.S.C. § 119 for a foreign priority date of January 17, 2000,
while the Huber patent has an issue date of October 10, 2000. On
this record, Huber is prior art with respect to the instant
application under § 102(e), but not under § 102(a). This change
in the statutory basis of the rejection does not prejudice the
appellant to any meaningful extent. Also, the statement of the
appealed rejection in the answer does not include claim 10. The
remarks accompanying the rejection indicate, however, that the
omission was inadvertent.
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007