Appeal No. 2005-0558 Page 3
Application No. 10/280,994
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by
appellant and the examiner regarding the above-noted rejection,
we refer to the final rejection (mailed September 5, 2003), the
examiner’s answer (mailed August 19, 2004), appellant’s brief
(filed June 10, 2004) and reply brief (filed October 22, 2004)
for a full exposition thereof.
0PINION
Having carefully reviewed the anticipation issue raised in
this appeal in light of the record before us, we have made the
determination that the examiner’s rejection will not be
sustained. Our reasons follow.
Looking to the final rejection, we note that the examiner
has directed us to the manufactured seed depicted in Figures 1A
and 1B of Hartle, and more specifically to the disclosure
spanning pages 27 and 28 of that reference wherein a method of
making the lid (274) of the manufactured seed seen in Figure 1B
is described. In pertinent part, that disclosure indicates that
the lids were made “using strips of Parafilm™ M laboratory film
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007