Appeal No. 2005-0899
Application No. 10/058,520 Page 3
The prior art references of record relied upon by the
examiner in rejecting the appealed claims are:
Rizzi et al. (Rizzi) 3,963,699 Jun. 15, 1976
Volpenhein 4,517,360 May 14, 1985
Claims 1-28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Rizzi. Claims 1-28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Volpenhein.
We refer to the brief and to the answer for a complete
exposition of the opposing viewpoints expressed by appellants and
the examiner concerning the issues before us on this appeal.
OPINION
Upon review of the record including the respective positions
advanced by appellants and the examiner with respect to the
rejections that remains before us2, we find ourselves in
agreement with appellants since the examiner has not carried the
burden of establishing a prima facie case of anticipation.
Accordingly, we will not sustain the examiner's stated rejections
on this record substantially for reasons set forth in appellants’
briefs.
2 A § 102(b) rejection over Kenneally (U.S. Patent No.
5,491,226) as referred to at page 2 of the final rejection was
not carried forward in the answer. Consequently, that rejection
is not before us.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007