Appeal 2007-2140
Application 09/892,790
Patent 5,917,679
Given the ample support for Examiner’s position, we conclude that
Appellants have not shown the Examiner erred on this point.
(3)
Modification of Nepela to Provide Missing Elements
In the Third Reply Brief at pages 18-21, Appellants argue that
modification of Nepela is impermissible to support an anticipation rejection.
We agree.
However, no such modification is used by the Examiner to support the
rejection. Rather, as discussed above, every element of claims 21, 30-32,
and 41, is found in Nepela. Therefore, this argument fails to show Examiner
error.
(4)
Chapin Patent
In the Third Reply Brief at pages 21-25, Appellants argue that the
Chapin does not support the Examiner’s anticipation rejection. We agree.
However, the Chapin Patent was not used by the Examiner to support
the rejection. Rather, as discussed above, every element of claims 21, 30-32,
and 41, is found in Nepela. Therefore, this argument fails to show Examiner
error.
- 24 -
Page: Previous 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013