Appeal No. 97-0802
Application 08/414,112
The Examiner relies on the admitted prior art in
Appellant's figure 4 and specification, pages 1-2, and the
following prior art patents:
Ellis 3,956,745 May 11, 1976
Moss 4,818,048 April 4,
1989
Claims 1-7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Moss in view of the admitted prior art and
Ellis.
We refer to the Examiner's Answer (Paper No. 13) (pages
referred to as "EA__") for a statement of the Examiner's
position and to the Appeal Brief (Paper No. 12) (pages
referred to as "Br__") and the Reply Brief (Paper No. 14)
(pages referred to as "RBr__") for a statement of Appellant's
arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
Grouping of claims
The Examiner erred in stating that Appellant failed to
provide reasons in support of the separate patentability of
claim 5 for the reasons stated by Appellant (RBr1-2).
However, since the rejection of claim 1 is reversed, the
- 3 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007