Appeal No. 1998-1885
Application No. 07/914,359
Harris et al. (Harris) 4,280,330 Jul. 28, 1991
Claim 1 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Follmer.
Claims 2, 9 and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Follmer in view of Takatsuka.
Claims 11-15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Follmer in view of Harris or Wareman
and further in view of Cherry.
Reference must be made to the examiner’s answer
(Paper No. 24), the final rejection (Paper No. 18) and office
actions mailed March 5, 1996 (Paper No. 16) and May 25, 1994
(Paper No. 9) for an explanation of these rejections.1
The viewpoints of appellants in opposition to the
positions taken by the examiner in rejecting the claims are
set forth in the main and reply briefs (Paper Nos. 23 and 26).
1The examiner’s reference on pages 3 and 4 of the answer
to two separate office actions (Paper Nos. 16 and 18), which
office actions in turn refer to an addition office action
(Paper No. 9), for the particulars of the rejections is
clearly improper (see MPEP § 1208) and creates unnecessary
confusion.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007