Appeal No. 95-4589
Application 08/042,888
The references relied on by the examiner are:
McComb 926,956 July 6, 1909
Swanson 2,612,548 Sept. 30, 1952
Turner, Jr. (Turner) 3,706,968 Dec. 19, 1972
Barbour 3,868,501 Feb. 25, 1975
Forrest 4,809,584 Mar. 7, 1989
Claim 11 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, second
paragraph, for failing to particularly point out and
distinctly claim the subject matter which the appellant
regards as the invention.3
Claims 1-3, 5-8, 11, 12, 14-16 and 18-20 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over McComb in
view of Forrest and Swanson.
Claims 4 and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over McComb in view of Forrest, Swanson and
Barbour.4
3This rejection was set forth as a new ground of
rejection in the answer.
4This rejection was set forth as a new ground of
rejection in the answer. In the final rejection claims 4 and
13 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over McComb in view of Swanson, Forrest and McDermott. In
view of the lack of any mention of this rejection in the
answer, we presume that the examiner has withdrawn the final
rejection of claims 4 and 13 on this ground. See Ex parte
Emm, 118 USPQ 180 (Bd. App. 1957).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007