Appeal No. 2005-0642
Application No. 09/568,278
8 and 9 have been amended to depend from claim 4, rather than claim
7. Accordingly, it is submitted that claims 4-6, 8 and 9 are allowable.
Independent claims 1 and 10 have also been rewritten to include
the limitations thought to be responsible for the allowance of claim 7.
Accordingly, claims 1-3 and 10-16 are now believed to be in
allowable form, as are newly added claims 19 and 20 which depend
from claim 10.
46. On October 18, 1996, the Examiner entered a Final Office action.
47. Claims 1-6, 8, and 9, were indicated to be allowable.
48. Claim 20 was "objected to" as being dependent on a rejected claim.
49. Claims 10-12, 16, and 19 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as
being unpatentable over Sugawara.
50. Claims 13-15 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Sugawara in view of Seevers.
51. The Examiner found that Sugawara “clearly anticipated” amended
claims 10-12, and 16, and new claim 19.
52. Again, the Examiner held that it would have been obvious to provide
the hinge of Surawara with the pins and oblong slots of Seevers in order to provide
for axial adjustment of the latching part for easier connection between the male and
female elements.
- 11 -
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007