Appeal No. 97-0082
Application No. 07/993,718
Therefore, while it is unclear whether the interconnection 19 of
Bales is in exactly the same plane as the neck engaging portion
22, one of ordinary skill in this art would have found it obvious
to form the interconnection and the neck engaging portion in the
same plane if, for no other reason, than to provide a more secure
connection therebetween.
In summary:
The examiner’s rejection of claim 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
first paragraph, is affirmed.
The examiner’s rejections of claims 1, 4, 5, 8 and 18 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 are affirmed.
The examiner’s rejections of claims 2, 3, 6, 7, 9-15 and 19-
23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are reversed.
A new rejection of claims 6, 7 and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
has been made.
Any request for reconsideration or modification of this
decision by the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences based
upon the same record must be filed within one month from the date
hereof (37 CFR § 1.197).
With respect to the new rejection under 37 CFR § 1.196(b),
should appellants elect the alternate option under that rule to
prosecute further before the Primary Examiner by way of amendment
19
Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007