Appeal No. 97-2546
Application 08/399,722
February 7, 1997 (Paper No. 17). The above enumerated claims
are all of the claims recognized by appellant and the examiner
as remaining in the application, claims 1, 2, 4, 6 and 15
through 24 having purportedly been canceled.2
Appellant’s invention is directed to a watertight
grommet. Independent claims 34 and 35 are representative of
the subject matter on appeal and a copy of those claims may be
found in Paper No. 17, filed February 7, 1997.
The references of record relied upon by the examiner in
rejecting the appealed claims are:
Ono et al. (Ono) 4,797,513 Jan. 10, 1989
Oikawa et al. (Oikawa) 4,928,349 May 29, 1990
Takayanagi et al. (Takayanagi)6-150,757 May 31, 1994
(Japanese) (Translation attached)
2 While both the examiner and appellant seem to be in agreement that claim 22
has been canceled, our review of the record reveals no formal amendment which has
actually requested cancellation of claim 22. However, since the rejections before us on
pages 4 and 5 of the answer have not treated claim 22, we leave it to appellant and the
examiner to clarify the status of this claim during any further prosecution of the
application before the examiner. We also observe that the amendment filed August 1,
1996 has not yet been fully entered. Note particularly, page 4 of that amendment.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007