Appeal No. 96-4149
Application 08/276,436
The following rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) are
before us for review:2
(1) claims 1 to 5 and 7, as being anticipated by Horvath;
(2) claims 1 to 5 and 7, as being anticipated by
Daubenspeck; and,
(3) claims 1, 4 and 6, as being anticipated by Mayr.
The rejections are explained in the examiner’s answer
(Paper No. 10, mailed July 8, 1996).
The opposing viewpoints of appellant are set forth in the
brief (Paper No. 7, filed April 1, 1996).
OPINION
We have encountered substantial difficulty determining
the metes and bounds of appellant’s claims. Independent
method claim 1 is directed to the method of restraining an
object from violent movement. The method includes the step of
fastening a first bracket to a structure "in such a manner
that the bracket can undergo slight, controlled, movement with
relation to the structure under conditions of stress to the
2The final rejection (Paper No. 4, mailed October 30,
1995) also included a rejection of claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. §
112, second paragraph, however, this rejection has since been
withdrawn by the examiner. See page 2 of the answer.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007