Appeal No. 96-4017
Application 08/217,544
the examiner and appellant regarding that rejection, we make
reference to the final rejection (Paper No. 6, mailed March 15,
1995), the examiner's answer (Paper No. 11, mailed November 14,
1995) and the supplemental examiner's answer (Paper No. 13,
mailed April 1, 1996) for the examiner's reasoning in support of
the rejection, and to appellant's brief (Paper No. 10, filed
August 15, 1995) and reply brief (Paper No. 12, filed January 16,
1996) for appellant's arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
Before addressing the examiner's rejection, we note
that the last clause of claim 1 on appeal appears to us to be
somewhat unclear. Accordingly, we turn to the specification and
drawings of the application in an effort to arrive at a proper
understanding of this claim recitation. The claim language in
question reads as follows
said body member being on the same surface of
a steering wheel, not bending upward when the
anti-theft device is attached to the steering
wheel, preventing a rider from colliding with
the elongated body member when entering the
vehicle[.]
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007