Appeal No. 1998-1052
Application No. 08/683,600
(b) claims 1 and 21-24, rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103,
as being unpatentable over Anderson;
(c) claims 5, 6, 18, 20, 25-29 and 31, rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103, as being unpatentable over Anderson in view of
Bubley; and
(d) claim 30, rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103, as being
unpatentable over Anderson in view of Bubley and Wimberger.
Reference is made to the final rejection and examiner’s
answer (Paper Nos. 4 and 7) for a statement of the examiner’s
position, and to the brief and reply brief (Paper Nos. 6 and
9) for a statement of appellants’ arguments thereagainst.
Preliminary Matters
Appellants have questioned whether it was appropriate for
the examiner to make final the office action mailed November
19, 1996. This matter is not directly connected with the
merits of issues involving a rejection of claims and therefore
is reviewable by petition to the Director rather than by
appeal to this Board. Compare In re Hengehold, 440 F.2d 1395,
1403-04, 169 USPQ 473, 479 (CCPA 1971). Accordingly, we shall
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007