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 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007