Appeal No. 95-2939
Application 08/050,690
This is an appeal from the examiner’s refusal to allow
claims 1, 2 and 6-10. Claims 3-5 and 11 have been cancelled.2
Appellant’s disclosed invention pertains to a pushmount. A
basic understanding of the invention can be derived from a
reading of exemplary claim 1, a copy of which is appended to this
opinion.
THE REFERENCES
The following references are relied on by the examiner:
Nelson 3,205,546 Sept. 14, 1965
Osterland et al. (Osterland) 4,630,338 Dec. 23, 1986
THE REJECTIONS3
Claims 1, 2, 6 and 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
as being anticipated by Osterland.
Claims 1, 2, and 6-9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
as being anticipated by Nelson.
Claim 10 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Nelson.
The full text of the examiner’s rejections and response to
argument presented by the appellant appears in the final
2Claims 1, 6, 7 and 9 were amended after final.
3A rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, of
claims 1, 2 and 6-10 was overcome in an Amendment After Final
filed on October 6, 1994. See Paper No. 11.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007