Ex parte ETAO HUANG - Page 3

          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.                               

                    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                       


Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007