Appeal No. 94-4239
Application 07/942,293
Schmidt et al. 4,436,372 Mar. 13,
1984
(Schmidt)
The following rejection is the sole rejection before
us for review.
Claims 1 through 4, 6, and 7 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Horton.
The full text of the examiner's rejection and
response to the argument presented by appellants appears in
the answer (Paper No. 13), while the complete statement of
appellant's argument can be found in the brief (Paper No.
12) .2
OPINION
The copy of claim 3 in the appendix to the brief is in2
error in that it reflects that the claim depends from claim 1.
Claim 3, in the application file, specifies that the claim depends
from claim 2. The copy of claim 7 in the brief is also in error.
The recitation of "the vehicle" in the claim should be "a vehicle"
as in claim 7 in the application file. We have reviewed claims 3
and 7 based upon their correct form in the application file.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007