Appeal No. 1996-3918
Application No. 08/232,351
Willard 4,948,127 Aug. 14,
1990
The prior art depicted by the appellant in Fig. 2 and
described in the paragraph bridging pages 5 and 6 of the
specification. (the prior art of Fig. 2).
The answer states that the following rejections are
applicable to the claims on appeal.2
(1) Claims 1, 3-5, 8, 9 and 21 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Cramblett in view of
White.
(2) Claims 1, 3-5, 8, 9, 11-13, 15, 16 and 21 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the
prior art of Fig. 2 in view of White.
(3) Claim 14 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over the prior art of Fig. 2 in view of
White as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of
Chervenka and Willard.
2In the final rejection the claims on appeal were also
rejected under "the judicially created doctrine of double
patenting over patent no. 5,279,496" (see page 6). In view of
the lack of any mention of this rejection in the answer, we
presume that the examiner has withdrawn the final rejection of
claims 1, 3-5, 8, 9, 11-16 and 21 on this ground. See Ex
parte Emm, 118 USPQ 180, 181 (Bd. App. 1957).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007