Appeal No. 96-3106
Application 08/052,015
failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the
subject matter which Appellants regard their invention. Also,
claims 1 through 9, 18 and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103 as being unpatentable over the teachings of Sutrina and
Granberg . 3
Rather than repeat the discussions of Appellants and the
Examiner, we make reference to the brief and the answer for
the respective details thereof.
OPINION
We have considered the rejections advanced by the
3The record seems to be conflicting. Specifically, an
"Examiner Interview Summary Record" was mailed on June 26,
1995, Paper no. 15. It states: "claims 1 and 18 appear to
distinguish over Sutrina . . . member." But there was no
indication of allowance of any claims in any office action,
besides this form.
Further, in the Advisory Action mailed on August 4, 1995,
Paper no. 17, the Examiner gave a different interpretation to
the primary reference, Sutrina, and stated: "The disclosure of
Sutrina needs to be considered collectively. . . . The
Examiner mistakenly referred to element (10) in Sutrina as
being the claimed support member. . . ." However, in the
Examiner's Answer, pages 4 to 5, the Examiner went back to the
position taken in the final rejection, pages 2 to 4. We here
consider the Examiner's position as laid out in the Examiner's
Answer, which is consistent with the Final Rejection.
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007