Appeal 2007-1920
Application 09/731,437
Based on the above claim construction, the rejection of claims 1, 6-10, 13,
21, 22, 24-26, 28, and 29 as anticipated by Jones is improper, because Jones does
not disclose each and every limitation as set forth in claims 1, 6-10, 13, 21, 22, 24-
26, 28, and 29, either expressly or inherently. In particular, Jones fails to anticipate
independent claim 1, because it does not teach a spacing means (Finding of
Fact 3). The Examiner marked up Figure 3 of Jones to show where he believes the
engagement member, spacing member, and support member are disclosed
(Answer, Appendix). However, the spacing member described by the Examiner in
Jones does not hold the supporting member generally below the engagement
member and outwardly from the hunter’s body as required by each of the appealed
claims. Because Jones fails to disclose each limitation of independent claim 1, it
also fails to anticipate dependent claims 6-10, 13, 21, 22, 24-26, 28, and 29.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
We conclude that 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.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013