Appeal No. 1995-4804
Application No. 07/861,387
(Filed May 02,
1990)
The appealed claims stand rejected as follows : 2
(1) Claims 1, 2, 11 through 13 and 15 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the combined disclosures of
Griggs and Stawicki ; 3
(2) Claim 14 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over the combined disclosures of Griggs, Stawicki
and Phillips ; 4
2The examiner states that "[claim 17 is rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over [Griggs] as applied to
claim 16 above, and further in view of [Azarniouch]." See
Answer, page 4. However, both claims 16 and 17 were withdrawn
from consideration by the examiner himself during prosecution
of the present application. See the final Office action dated
February 2, 1994, Paper No. 11. Note also that no appeal is
directed to the rejection of claim 17. See the Notice of
Appeal dated May 9, 1994, Paper No. 12. Accordingly, we will
not consider the merits of this rejection and will dismiss it.
3The examiner inadvertently states that "[c]laims 1, 2,
11-13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over [Griggs] as applied to claim 18 above, and
further in view of [Stawicki]." See Answer, page 3. It is
clear from the Answer that the rejection of claims 1, 2, 11-13
and 15 is based on the combined disclosures of Griggs and
Stawicki and that no rejection of claim 18 is set forth in the
Answer. See Answer, pages 3 and 4.
4The examiner inadvertently states that "[c]laim 14 is
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007