Appeal No. 1996-0729
Application No. 07/859,572
The claims are rejected as follows:
I. Claims 1, 12 through 14, 20 and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as lacking
patentable utility (answer, pages 3-4 and 9-12).
II. Claim 7 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Legrand II
(answer, pages 5 and 12-13). 2
III. Claim 7 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Mitsuya,
Ahluwalia, Herdewijn, Van Aerschot, Harmenberg and applicants’ admission in view of Legrand II
(answer, pages 7-9 and 14-15).
IV. Claims 1 and 12 through 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Mitsuya, Ahluwalia, Herdewijn, Van Aerschot, Harmenberg and applicants’ admission in view of
Legrand II (answer, pages 5-7 and 13-14). 3
We sustain rejections II and III and reverse rejections I and IV for reasons which follow.
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to the appellants’
specification and claims, to the applied prior art references and to the respective positions articulated by
the appellants and the examiner. We make reference to the examiner’s answer (Paper No. 26, mailed
2Our decision is based upon consideration of Legrand II which, according to the examiner, is the full length
article underlying Legrand I (answer, page 3).
3The rejection of claims 20 through 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Mitsuya, Ahluwalia, Herdewijn, Van
Aerschot, Harmenberg and applicants’ admission in view of Legrand II has been withdrawn by the examiner (answer,
page 3).
- 3 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007