Ex parte FRANCHAK - Page 3




                 Appeal No. 98-1456                                                                                       Page 3                        
                 Application No. 08/294,958                                                                                                             


                                                                   BACKGROUND                                                                           
                          The appellant's invention relates to a baby safety seat.                                                                      


                          The prior art references of record relied upon by the                                                                         
                 examiner in rejecting the appealed claims are:                                                                                         
                 Dustin                                       2,667,917                                    Feb.  2, 1954                                
                 Sckolnik                                     4,568,125                                    Feb.  4, 1986                                
                 Dukatz et al. (Dukatz)                       5,224,756                                    July  6, 1993                                
                 Allum                                        5,354,121                                    Oct. 11, 1994                                
                                                                                         (filed Feb. 18,                                                
                 1993)                                                                                                                                  
                 Guieu-Gambino                                2,707,568                                    Jan. 20, 19953                               
                                                              (France)                                                                                  


                          Rather than reiterate the rejections and the conflicting                                                                      
                 viewpoints advanced by the examiner and the appellant                                                                                  
                 regarding the rejections made by the examiner, we make                                                                                 
                 reference to the examiner's answer (Paper No. 9, mailed May 3,                                                                         
                 1996) and the two supplemental examiner's answers (Paper Nos.                                                                          
                 12 and 15, mailed July 10, 1997 and December 9, 1997) for the                                                                          
                 examiner's complete reasoning in support of the rejections,                                                                            


                          3We note that this reference is not available as prior                                                                        
                 art since its publication date is subsequent to this                                                                                   
                 application's filing date.                                                                                                             







Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007