Appeal No. 2001-1739
Application 08/892,903
Rather than repeat the arguments of Appellant or the
Examiner, we make reference to the briefs2 and the answer for the
respective details thereof.
OPINION
With full consideration being given to the subject matter on
appeal, the Examiner’s rejections and the arguments of Appellant
and Examiner, for the reasons stated infra, we will not sustain
the Examiner’s rejection of claims 5 through 8 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, first paragraph, and we will not sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 23, 25 and 26 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph
The Examiner has rejected claims 5 through 8 because the
specification does not teach beam 14 has a perforation in which
the coupling rod is selectably rotationable. In particular, the
Examiner is relying on Appellant’s figure 1 which shows beam 10
having a perforation, slot 12, for receiving a threaded coupling
2 Appellant filed an appeal brief on February 15, 2000.
Appellant was notified on April 13, 2000, that the brief was
defective. Appellant filed a supplemental appeal brief on May 2,
2000. We will simply refer to the supplemental brief as the
brief. Appellant filed a reply brief on September 20, 2000. The
Examiner mailed an office communication on September 29, 2000,
stating that the reply brief has been entered and considered.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007