Appeal 2007-1920
Application 09/731,437
THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence of unpatentability:
Jones US 5,248,072 Sep. 28, 1993
Claims 1, 6-10, 13, 21, 22, 24-26, 28, and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as anticipated by Jones.
ISSUE
The issue before us is whether Appellant has shown that the Examiner erred
in rejecting claims 1, 6-10, 13, 21, 22, 24-26, 28, and 29 under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as
anticipated by Jones. The issue turns on whether Jones discloses a “spacing
member” as required by each of the appealed claims.
FINDINGS OF FACT
We find that the following enumerated findings are supported by at least a
preponderance of the evidence. Ethicon, Inc. v. Quigg, 849 F.2d 1422, 1427, 7
USPQ2d 1152, 1156 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (explaining the general evidentiary standard
for proceedings before the Office).
1. The Specification describes a spacing member that is “adapted to
combine the engagement member and the spacing member so that the
supporting member is held in a position generally below the engagement
member and outwardly from the hunter’s body” (Specification 9:20-
10:2).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013