Appeal No. 96-2143
Application 08/046,056
10, and 17
through 19. On page 2 of the answer (Paper No. 14), now
superseded by the supplemental examiner's answer of July 29,
1996, the examiner indicated that claim 1 was now considered
to be allowable. Non-elected claims 3 through 8, 11 through2
14, and 20 through 22, the only other claims remaining in the
application stand withdrawn from consideration by the
examiner. In light of the above, we have before us for review
on appeal only claims 9, 15, and 16.
Appellants’ disclosed invention pertains to a low force
actuator system. An understanding of the invention can be
derived from a reading of exemplary claims 9 and 15, copies of
which appear in the main brief (Paper No. 13).
As evidence of obviousness, the examiner has applied the
documents listed below:
2On the last two pages of the supplemental examiner’s answer of July 29,
1996, the examiner offers an explanation as to why the content of claim 1,
previously under final rejection based upon the combined teachings of
Froeschle and Ivers (35 U.S.C. § 103), is now considered allowable. However,
in light of our assessment of the low force actuator system of claim 9
relative to the combined teachings of Froeschle and Ivers, infra, it appears
appropriate to us for the examiner to again consider the low force actuator
system of claim 1 relative to this prior art and take appropriate action.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007