Appeal No. 95-2622
Application 08/125,524
restricted, nonelected Claims 11 and 12 have been withdrawn
from further consideration by the examiner (page 7 of the
Office Action mailed November 19, 1993 (Paper No. 2) and page
3 of the Examiner’s Answer).
The propriety of the examiner’s restriction requirement is
petitionable to the Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks and
is not a matter for review on appeal to this Board under 35
U.S.C.
§ 134. See In re Watkinson, 900 F.2d 230, 233, 14 USPQ2d
1407, 1409-10 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Hengehold, 440 F.2d
1395, 1404, 169 USPQ 473, 479 (CCPA 1971).
Introduction
Claim 1 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
described by Spencer, U.S. Patent 2,152,826, patented April 4,
1939. Claim 1 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable in view of the teaching of either Spencer or
Gruhn et al. (Gruhn), U.S. Patent 4,661,406, patented April
- 2 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007