Appeal No. 96-4137
Application 08/260,674
The examiner made the following rejections:3
Claims 22 and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
112, second paragraph as being indefinite for failing to
particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter
which applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 5, 12, 19, 20 and 22 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Turner in view of
Quinton.
Claims 2, 3, 4, 13 and 14 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Turner and Quinton as
applied to claim 1 above, in further in view of Bougher.
Claims 6 and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Turner and Quinton as applied to
3The examiner’s answer contained new grounds of
rejection of (1) claim 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph, and (2) claims 13 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph. In response thereto, the appellant filed an
amendment on September 9, 1996 (Paper No. 29) to “overcome”
these new rejections. The examiner entered this amendment,
but made no mention of the new rejections (see the
supplemental answer dated December 23, 1996 (Paper No. 30)).
In view of the fact that the examiner did not dispute the
appellant’s position that the amendment overcame the new
rejections or otherwise make any mention of these rejections
in the supplemental answer, we presume that they have been
withdrawn. See Ex parte Emm, 118 USPQ 180 (Bd.App. 1957).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007