Appeal No. 98-1207 Page 3
Application No. 08/420,648
BACKGROUND
The appellant's invention relates to a high volume pipe
padding machine. An understanding of the invention can be
derived from a reading of exemplary claim 17, which appears in
the appendix to the appellant's brief.2
The prior art references of record relied upon by the
examiner in rejecting the appealed claims are:
Downey 3,701,422 Oct. 31,
1972
Gellhaus 4,162,968 July 31,
1979
Bishop et al. 4,912,862 April 3,
1990
(Bishop)
OPINION
2We note that the text of claim 17 in the appendix of the
brief is not a true copy of pending claim 17 as pointed out by
the examiner on page 3 of the answer. However, we, like the
examiner, will treat claim 17 as having been amended to read
as presented in the appendix of the brief. The appellant
should ensure that claim 17 is properly amended in any further
prosecution before the examiner.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007