Appeal No. 97-4240
Application 08/294,074
necessary to permit the panels 12 to be manually mounted in and
removed from the channels in the posts in the manner claimed.
We have carefully reviewed the references to Kurrasch,
Stephens and Weissenbach but find nothing therein which would
overcome the deficiencies we have noted above with respect to
Polhamus and Quinlan. This being the case, we will not sustain
any of the above-noted rejections.
As a final matter, we note that on September 3, 1996 the
appellants filed an amendment after final rejection with a
declaration attached thereto (see Paper No. 7) and the examiner
denied entry of the amendment and declaration. The appellants
petitioned the examiner’s refusal to enter the amendment and
declaration. The decision on petition (Paper No. 13), while
denying the appellants’ request to have the amendment entered,
nevertheless granted the appellants’ petition to the extent of
having the examiner consider the declaration. However, it is not
apparent from the record that the examiner ever considered the
declaration. On the other hand, the appellants have not
mentioned the declaration in either the brief or reply brief and
therefore we presume that they did not intend to rely on this
evidence. In any event, even if the appellants had relied on the
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007