Appeal No. 96-3592
Application 08/381,335
As a final matter, we note the examiner’s observations at the top of page 3 of the
answer with respect to the use of the brackets in dependent claim 21. It appears that each
of the other claims on appeal have not utilized a bracket as a part of the generalized
notation of the elements. Although the disclosure utilizes the brackets, each of the claims
on appeal except claim 21 does not so utilize brackets but utilizes instead double
parentheses. For consistency purposes as well as to avoid any potential conflict with
conventional claim amendment practice regarding brackets, it appears advisable that
claim 21 be amended.
In view of the foregoing, the decision of the examiner rejecting claims 18 through 30
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
REVERSED
)
STANLEY M. URYNOWICZ, JR. )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
JAMES D. THOMAS )
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
)
) INTERFERENCES
)
RICHARD TORCZON )
Administrative Patent Judge )
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007