Appeal No. 97-2626
Application 08/234,502
description of figures 8-15 and 18-20, it is uncertain how the
means for urging is “positioned with respect to any one of the
blocking/detection elements shown in figures 8-15 and 18-20 so
as to not interfere with the performance of the
blocking/detection element(s).” (id. at 5).
The prior art rejections
6. Claims 49, 51, 57, 59, 61, and 62 have been
rejected as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over
Narita ‘93, Japanese Kokai 61-206993 (1986).
7. Claims 50, 52, 58, 60, and 63-65 have been
rejected as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over
Narita ‘93 in view of Hasegawa, Japanese Kokai 61-187188
(1986).
8. In the examiner’s answer, the following new
rejections were made :2
a) Claims 49, 51, 57, 59, 61, and 62 have been
rejected as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over
Narita ‘93 in view of Narita ‘92, Japanese Kokai 61-206992
2Claims 50 and 52 were also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming
the same invention, however the examiner withdrew the rejection in response to
an amendment by the appellant.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007