Appeal No. 97-1475
Application 08/069,544
Dutton 2,407,406 Sep. 10, 1946
Goldstein 4,561,272 Dec. 31, 1985
Freeman 4,598,562 Jul. 08, 1986
Dalby 4,753,465 Jun. 28, 1988
THE REJECTIONS 2
Claims 11 through 30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
first paragraph, as being directed to a specification which, as
originally filed, does not support the invention as now claimed.
According to the examiner (answer, page 6), the recitation in
claims 11, 18, 21 and 25 of "primarily solid monolithic" Nitinol
has no support in the original specification.
Claims 11, 12 and 21 through 24 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Dutton in view of
Goldstein.
Claims 13 through 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Dutton in view of Goldstein as applied to
claims 11 and 12 above, and further in view of Dalby.
2As indicated in the supplemental examiner's answer mailed November 25,
1996 (Paper No. 28), the rejection of claim 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, as stated in the final rejection and examiner's answer has been
overcome. In addition, it is indicated that the rejection of claim 17 under
35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, and the objection to claim 18 set forth on
pages 6 and 7 of the examiner's answer have been obviated by the amendment
filed September 9, 1996.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007