Appeal No. 96-4136
Application 08/157,688
(2) Claims 2, 4 and 5, unpatentable over Leaycraft in view
of Edwards, under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Before considering these rejections, we note that one of the
issues specified and argued by appellant in his brief is
the "premature and improper imposition of a Final Rejection"
(page 4). However, as pointed out by the examiner on page 9 of
the answer, this is a matter which is petitionable, not
appealable, and this Board has no jurisdiction to consider it.
MPEP § 706.07(c); Ex parte Jackson, 1926 C.D. 102, 104 (Comr.
1924).
Rejection(1)
The basis of this rejection is set forth on page 4 of the
examiner's answer. The crux of the question involved here is
whether Schneider discloses a fork tube 85 (Fig. 5) which
"compris[es] means for allowing said fork tube portion to be
displaced perpendicular to its axis" and an "expanding means
which . . ., when operated, . . . displaces said fork tube
portion laterally against said inner wall of said handlebar stem
hollow portion", as called for by claim 1.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007