Appeal No. 97-3196
Application No. 08/569,275
Claims 27-30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Renne.
Claims 31 and 32 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Renne.
Claims 21-24 and 26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Bratzler in view of Renne.
Claim 25 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Bratzler in view of Renne and Adams.
The rejections are explained in Paper No. 6 (the final
rejection).
The opposing viewpoints of the appellant are set forth in
Paper No. 13 (the supplemental Appeal Brief).
OPINION
The Rejection Under Section 112, First Paragraph
The examiner has objected to the specification as
originally filed because it does not provide support for the
limitation in claim 32 that the rough edges of the locking
device are removed by “burnishing.” We agree with the
examiner that this term is not explicitly recited in the
specification, and are not persuaded by the appellant’s
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007