Appeal No. 96-2808
Application 08/102,708
References of Record
The following references of record are relied upon by the examiner as evidence of obviousness:
Buc 2,046,243 Jun. 30, 1936
Leum et al. (Leum) 2,480,940 Sep. 6, 1949
Bruderreck et al. (Bruderreck)4,468,233 Aug. 28, 1984
The Rejections3
Claims 21-26, 29-31, 38 and 39 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Bruderreck in view of Leum, appellants’ own admission of the state of the art, and Buc.
Claim 26 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, in that the disclosure is non-
enabling.
Opinion
We have carefully considered the respective positions advanced by appellants and the examiner.
For the reasons set forth below, we will affirm the examiner’s rejection of claims 31 and 39, but we reverse
the examiner's rejection of claims 21-26, 29-30 and 38 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. We also reverse the
examiner’s the rejection of claim 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph. Since our rationale for
affirming the rejection of claims 31 and 39 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Bruderreck in view of Leum,
appellants’ own admission of the state of the art, and Buc is different from that expressed by the examiner,
we denominate our affirmance as a new rejection pursuant to the provisions of 37 CFR § 1.196(b).
The final Office action included a rejection of claims 21, 31, 38 and 39 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.3
This rejection has been withdrawn by the examiner (answer: p. 2) and is not before us for consideration.
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007