Appeal No. 95-4336
Application 08/057,898
Reply Brief.
The reference applied in the final rejection is:
Montelius (Sweden) 196,517 Jun. 01, 19652
An additional reference of record, applied herein in a 3
rejection pursuant to 37 CFR § 1.196(b) is:
Ichiyanagi (Japanese Kokai) 57-1807 Jan. 07, 19824
Claim 16 stands finally rejected under 35 USC § 102(b) as
anticipated by Montelius.5
2Our understanding of this reference is based upon a translation thereof
(not including the claims) submitted by appellants at an interview with the
examiner on April 20, 1994 (Paper No. 6).
3This reference was applied in Paper No. 17 (see footnote 5, infra), but
does not appear to have been listed on a PTO-892 form in this application.
4Our understanding of this reference is based upon a translation of the
disclosure relating to Fig. 1 thereof, prepared by the PTO on December 15,
1994. A copy of the translation was forwarded to appellants with Paper No. 17.
5In the final rejection (Paper No. 5), claim 16 was rejected under
§ 102(b) as anticipated by Montelius or by Japanese Kokai 58-166183, as well
as under § 112, second paragraph. The examiner indicated in two Advisory
Actions (Paper Nos. 8 and 11) that the § 112 rejection was overcome by
amendments filed on May 23 and 31, 1994, respectively. In a Supplemental
Examiner's Answer (Paper No. 17), the examiner rejected claim 16 on the new
grounds of double patenting and anticipation by Ichiyanagi under § 102(b),
but, following the filing of an amendment and a terminal disclaimer, he issued
a second Supplemental Examiner's Answer (Paper No. 22), withdrawing all
grounds of rejection except for the ground (anticipation by Montelius) now
before us.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007