Appeal No. 2005-1093 Page 3
Application No. 10/058,200
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
the appellants' specification and claims, to the applied prior art reference, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellants and the examiner. As a consequence
of our review, we make the determinations which follow.
The examiner has rejected of claims 90 to 96, 98 to 101, 104 to 109, 112, 113,
and 115 to 117 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being anticipated by Reynolds or in the
alternative under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Reynolds.
To support a rejection of a claim under 35 U.S.C. § 102, it must be shown that
each element of the claim is found, either expressly described or under principles of
inherency, in a single prior art reference. See Kalman v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 713
F.2d 760, 772, 218 USPQ 781, 789 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1026
(1984).
The examiner is of the opinion t
hat Reynolds discloses the invention as claimed. In regard to the limitation in claim 90
of a “single conveyor. . . for supplying the filter tubes to the processing stations,” the
examiner states:
Regarding the one conveyor and multiple processing
stations, Reynolds shows conveyor16 moving the filter tubes
which are first stopped by mechanism 20 and then cut by
cutting means 22. Since the filter tubes are stopped and cut,
the examiner is interpreting the stopping mechanism to be
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007