Appeal No. 96-1747
Application 08/299,839
examiner. The determinations we have made and the reasoning
behind them are set forth below.
The Rejection Under 35 U.S.C. § 112, Second Paragraph
The examiner's reasons for rejecting the claim are found
in the advisory action mailed May 5, 1995, and in the answer
at page 3. The appellant does not contest this ground of
rejection (brief, pages 2 and 3). Therefore, we are
constrained to sustain this rejection.
The Rejection Under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
Claim 6 stands rejected as being anticipated by Vario.
The claim is directed to a form tie comprising an
elongated rod of constant diameter having "three saddle shaped
portions, two of which are spaced apart and opening in the
same vertical
direction, and the third of which opens in the opposite
vertical direction and is located between said two spaced
apart portions." See, appellant's Figure 17.
The examiner argues that the three bent portions or kinks
shown in the rod (10) in Figure 1 of Vario are "saddle shaped"
and coplanar and, therefore, the language quoted above reads
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007