Appeal No. 96-0688
Application 08/105,465
According to the examiner,
[t]he now claimed subject matter is described in and
encompassed within the scope of the claim(s) in
Applicant’s U.S. Patent No. 5,285,586 and therefore, a
claim for the now claimed subject matter could have
been presented therein (answer, page 7).
Reference is made to the answer (Paper No. 19, mailed July
21, 1995, pages 3-12) for the examiner's reasoning in support of
the rejections before us on appeal and to appellant's brief
(Paper No. 18, filed February 21, 1995, pages 11-26) for the
arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
Having carefully reviewed and evaluated the issues raised in
this appeal in light of the record before us, we have come to the
conclusion, for the reasons which follow, that the examiner's
rejections of appealed claims 19 through 29 will not be
sustained.
We turn first to the examiner's rejection of claims 19
through 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Dana
III in view of Reichert or alternatively, Reichert in view of
Dana III. After a brief discussion of the teachings of the
applied references (answer, pages 3-4), the examiner concludes
that
[t]he skilled artisan would have found it obvious
to substitute the pressure sensitive switch connections
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007