Appeal No. 2006-1437
Application No. 10/782,161
Ikeya thus supports the examiner’s finding of anticipation with respect to instant
claim 8. Moreover, we find no response from appellant in the briefs as to why moving
the cover 12 of Ikeya from a closed to an open position fails to meet the terms of
moving a load plate as claimed.
As appellant has not persuaded us of error in the rejection of any claim on
appeal, we sustain the rejections under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103.
CONCLUSION
The rejection of claims 1, 4, 8, and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and the rejection of
claims 1-4 and 8-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are affirmed.
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007