Appeal No. 95-5066
Serial No. 07/931,330
(5) whether the examiner erred in rejecting claims 5-7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Kaun, Kotchick and Huebner in view of Italplastic ; and, 7
(6) whether the examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-3 and 5-7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
over Hamuro in view of Newton.
According to the Supplemental Answer (pages 1-2), (i) the new grounds of rejection of claim 1
in the Substitute Answer under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as indefinite has been withdrawn
upon entry of the August 1, 1995 amendment to claim 1 and (ii) the rejection of claim 3 under 35
U.S.C. § 112, fourth paragraph, has been withdrawn upon reconsideration and entry of the February
6, 1995 amendment to claim 3.
DELIBERATIONS
Our deliberations in this matter have included evaluation and review of the following materials:
(1) the instant specification, including all of the claims on appeal, (2) appellant's
Appeal Brief with amendment (paper nos. 18 and 19), (3) the Substitute Examiner's Answer (paper no.
22), (4) appellant's Reply Brief with amendment (paper nos. 23 and 24), (5) the Supplemental
Examiner's Answer (paper no. 25), and (6) the above-cited prior art references.
withdrawn. Ex parte Emm, 118 USPQ 180, 181 (Bd. App. 1957).
7 The last Office action (paper no. 16, mailed September 3, 1994) also included a rejection of claims 5-7
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Kaun in view of either Kotchick or Huebner, each taken further in view of
Italplastic. In that these rejections were not repeated in the Substitute Answer, they are presumed to have been
withdrawn. Ex parte Emm, 118 USPQ 180, 181 (Bd. App. 1957).
Page 5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007