Appeal No. 95-2803
Application 08/024,851
This is an appeal from the final rejection of
claims 29, 30, and 33. Claim 19, the only other claim remaining
in the application, stands allowed.
Appellants’ invention pertains to a cylindrical
inflator for inflating a vehicle occupant restraint. An
understand-ing of the invention can be derived from a reading of
exemplary claim 29, a copy of which appears in the “Appendix” to
appellants’ brief (Paper No. 26).
The following rejection is the sole rejection before us
for review on appeal.2
Claims 29, 30, and 33 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 101 (double patenting) as claiming the same invention as that
of claims 1 through 3 and 5 through 10 of commonly-assigned prior
U.S. Patent No. 5,248,162 to Levosinski et al. (Levosinski).
2A final rejection of claims 31 through 33 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 was not repeated in the answer. We note that claims 31
and 32 were canceled pursuant to the entered amendment after
final dated September 12, 1994 (Paper No 22), and that on page 4
of the answer (Paper No. 27) the examiner indicated that, upon
reconsideration, claim 33 was considered to be allowable over
applied art.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007