Appeal No. 2002-0670
Application 09/416,547
It is noted that there was confusion between the appellant
and the examiner as to the status of claims 10, 31 and 32 on
appeal. Paper No. 5, an amendment filed after final rejection,
amended claim 10, 31 and 32, although claims 10 and 32 had been
indicated as drawn to a nonelected invention and withdrawn from
consideration. Finally, in paper No. 14 mailed after the
examiner’s answer, the examiner indicated that claims 10 and 32
are indeed withdrawn from consideration. Since the examiner did
not comment on the status of claim 31, appellant stated in the
supplemental brief that claim 31 was on appeal. Inasmuch as
claim 31 depends from claim 30, a claim in and of itself
withdrawn from consideration, we hold that claim 31 must be, as
per the examiner, withdrawn from consideration and not subject to
this appeal.
The claimed invention is directed to a device retention
assembly for retaining a device. The specification mentions that
the device may be a computer drive or the like.
A further understanding of the claimed subject matter may be
had with reference to claim 1, reproduced below:
1. A device retention assembly, comprising:
a guide;
a guide channel;
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007