Appeal No. 97-2644
Application 08/381,531
rejection of claims 8 through 11 and 18 through 21 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 will not be sustained.
Appellant's brief, at pages 15 and 16, makes refer-
ence to a declaration by the inventor, Mr. Harold (attached to
Paper No. 9, filed September 12, 1996). However, in view of
our dis- position of the anticipation and obviousness rejec-
tions above, we find no need to review this declaration. We
note in passing that the record of this application is some-
thing less than the model of clarity with regard to whether
this declaration was actually considered by the examiner or
not. See, particularly, the advisory action (Paper No. 11,
mailed September 19, 1996). The decision with regard to
appellant's petition filed November 20, 1996 (Paper No. 14,
mailed December 31, 1996), indicates that the declaration "was
not formally considered by the examiner as to content."
Based on the foregoing, the decision of the examiner
rejecting claims 1 through 3, 5, 13, 15 and 17 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as anticipated by Schick, claims 6, 7, and 16 under
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007