Appeal No. 2005-1664
Application 09/878,111
"Br__") and reply brief (pages referred to as "RBr__") for a
statement of appellant's arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
Comment on Olsen as prior art
If appellant is correct about the characterizations of this
application as a continuation or division of ancestor
applications, then Olsen is not prior art. This application is
said to be a continuation of Application 09/086,964, filed
May 29, 1998, now U.S. Patent 6,254,483, issued July 3, 2001,
which is said to be a continuation of Application 08/465,717
('717 application), filed June 6, 1995, now U.S. Patent
5,836,817, issued November 17, 1998, which is said to be a
division of Application 08/322,172 ('172 application), filed
October 12, 1994, now U.S. Patent 5,655,961, issued
August 12, 1997. Both the '717 application and the '172
application have earlier filing dates than the earliest effective
filing date of Olsen. Nevertheless, since appellant has not
argued that he is entitled to the priority dates of the earlier
applications, and since the drawing figures are different,
implying a difference in disclosure, we treat Olsen as prior art.
The rejection and arguments
Appellant argues that the examiner did not identify where
each element of the claims is disclosed in Olsen, making it
impossible to address the specifics of the rejection (Br4). It
- 3 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007