Appeal No. 1999-2553
Application No. 08/802,222
The prior art references of record relied upon by the
examiner in rejecting the appealed claims are:
Moulton 746,869 Dec. 15, 1903
Steil 885,196 Apr. 21, 1908
Helmer 3,768,465 Oct. 30, 1973
The following rejections are before us for review.
(1) Claims 1, 2, 4-8 and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103 as being unpatentable over Steil in view of Moulton.
(2) Claims 3 and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Steil in view of Moulton, as applied
above, and further in view of Helmer.
Reference is made to the brief and reply brief (Paper
Nos. 16 and 18) and the Office action mailed May 27, 1997 and
answer (Paper Nos. 11 and 17) for the respective positions of2
the appellant and the examiner with regard to the merits of
these rejections.
2Rather than reiterate the explanations of the rejections, the
examiner's answer (pages 2 and 3) makes reference to the final rejection.
However, the final rejection (Paper No. 14), in turn, merely references Paper
No. 11 for an explanation of the rejections. Such a procedure by the examiner
is improper. The Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) § 1208 (7th ed.,
Jul. 1998) expressly provides that incorporation by reference in an examiner's
answer may be made only to a single other action.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007