Appeal No. 96-1602
Application 08/168,669
further consideration under 37 CFR § 1.142(b) as not readable on the elected invention.
Upon further consideration, the examiner objected to claims 5, 6, 8 and 9, but indicated
that they would be allowable if rewritten in independent form. Accordingly, only the
rejections of claims 1-4 and 7 remain before us for review.
Appellant’s invention pertains to a skate bearing insert. Independent claim 1, a
copy of which is found in the appendix to appellant’s main brief, is illustrative of the
appealed subject matter.
The references of record relied upon by the examiner in support of rejections under
35 U.S.C. § 103 are:
Muck 1,393,813 Oct. 18, 1921
Skorka 1,572,567 Feb. 9, 1926
Parrish 2,073,708 Mar. 16, 1937
Hoerle 2,105,354 Jan. 11, 1938
Marsh 3,348,289 Oct. 24, 1967
Miyazawa et al. (Miyazawa) 4,940,342 Jul. 10, 1990
The following rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are before us for review:2,3
2Rejections (b) and (c) are new rejections made for the first time in the examiner’s
answer. In the statement of these new rejections in the answer, the examiner inadvertently
identified dependent claim 9 rather than independent claim 7 as one of the claims subject
to the new rejections.
3The final rejection also included a rejection of the appealed claims as being
unpatentable over Muck in view of Marsh and Miyazawa. In that this rejection was not
repeated in the answer, it is presumed to have been withdrawn. See Ex parte Emm, 118
USPQ 180, 181 (Bd. App. 1957).
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007