Appeal No. 2005-1348
Application No. 09/534,466
and tension which are greater than those used in all of the
preceding operations.”
Since appellants have not overcome the examiner’s prima
facie case of anticipation, by either argument or objective
evidence, we will sustain the rejection of claims 1 and 13-17
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) over Huth.
CONCLUSION
We have sustained the rejection of claims 1 and 13-17 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) over Huth, but we have not sustained the
rejection of claims 1, 2, 6, 10, 11, and 14 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) over Jurkewitz and we have not sustained the rejection
of claims 3-5, and 7-9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Jurkewitz or
Jurkewitz and Sainio.
Accordingly, the examiner’s decision is affirmed-in-part.
-11-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007