Appeal No. 2006-1153
Application No. 10/123,269
The reference set forth below is relied upon by the examiner
in the Section 102 and Section 103 rejections before us:
Francis, Jr. (Francis) 2,543,101 Feb. 27, 1951
Claims 1-3, 5, 7-11, 13, 14, 16 and 18 are rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Francis.
Claims 4, 6, 12, 15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Francis.
We refer to the brief and reply brief and to the answer for
a complete discussion of the contrary viewpoints expressed by the
appellant and by the examiner concerning the above noted
rejections.
OPINION
For the reasons set forth in the answer and below, we will
sustain each of these rejections.
As fully explained in the answer, Francis discloses a method
(e.g., see figure 2 and the discussion thereof in columns 9-10)
which anticipatorily satisfies each of the limitations recited in
appealed independent claims 1 and 13.1
1We expressly repudiate the obviousness opinion expressed by
the examiner in his exposition of the Section 102 rejection
(i.e., see the penultimate and last sentences in the paragraph
bridging pages 3 and 4 of the answer). Statements of obviousness
have no place in a rejection based on anticipation.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007