Appeal No. 95-3444
Application 08/037,304
Accordingly, since the combination of Gagnon and Beberman
would not result in, or render obvious, a busway joint having
tabs as recited in claim 1, the rejection of that claim will not
be sustained.
The other independent claims, claims 8, 14 and 19, also
recite tabs in essentially the same manner as claim 1, and the
additional references applied in the rejections of dependent
claims 6, 7, 12, 13, 17, 18, 20 and 21 do not supply the
deficiencies noted with regard to the combination of Gagnon and
Beberman. Therefore, the rejections of claims 2 to 21 will also
not be sustained.
In view of the foregoing, it is unnecessary to consider
appellants’ contention (I) concerning the “pulltruded [sic]”
limitation.
Conclusion
The examiner’s decision to reject claims 1 to 21 is
reversed.
REVERSED
IAN A. CALVERT )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
LAWRENCE J. STAAB ) BOARD OF PATENT
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007