Appeal No. 2005-2054
Application No. 10/425,137
This argument is unpersuasive. As correctly indicated by
the examiner in the answer, the figures of Taheri’s drawing
plainly show that patentee’s inlets 54, 55 are smaller than his
outlets 51. See In re Meng, 492 F.2d 843, 847, 181 USPQ 94,
97 (CCPA 1974)(invention may be anticipated by a drawing in a
reference regardless of whether the drawing disclosure is
accidental or intentional) and In re Mraz, 455 F.2d 1069, 1072,
173 USPQ 25, 27 (CCPA 1972)(things clearly shown in drawings of a
reference are to be considered in determining claim
patentability). Although the appellants, in responding to the
answer, have filed a reply brief which acknowledges the
examiner’s Section 102 position (see the last sentence on page 2
of the reply brief), it is significant that the appellants have
not contested with any reasonable specificity the examiner’s
previously mentioned anticipation finding.
Under these circumstances, we hereby sustain the Section
102 rejection of claims 13 and 14 as being anticipated by Taheri.
As for the Section 103 rejection, the following argument is
presented by the appellants in the paragraph bridging pages 3 and
4 of the brief:
The issue is simple so Appellant [sic, Appellants]
will keep it short, in fact, down to three sentences
including this one. Claim 5 has been erroneously rejected
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007