Appeal No. 97-2746
Application 08/399,693
examiner with regard to the merits of this rejection. 3
As a preliminary matter, we note that on page 2 in the
brief the appellant has raised the issue of the status of an
earlier filed petition to the Commissioner (Paper No. 13). As
pointed out by the examiner on page 5 in the answer, a
response to this petition was mailed to the appellant on
January 15, 1997 (Paper No. 19).
Turning now to the rejection at hand, Fonden discloses a
method and apparatus for supplying pressurized air to the
brakes 4 of a net or cable device designed to arrest a moving
vehicle (e.g., an airplane) and retard its speed. As
described by Fonden with reference to Figure 3,
[t]he compressed air is kept in a receptable
[sic] 5 having a shut off valve 6 and a tubing 7 for
replenishing the receptacle with compressed air
through a valve 16 and draw off compressed air for
braking purposes respectively. From the tubing 7
the compressed air is conducted to a pressure
reducing valve 8 by means of which suitable braking
3 In the final rejection, claims 1 through 3 also were
rejected under the judicially created doctrine of double
patenting and under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph. The
examiner has since withdrawn both of these rejections (see the
advisory actions mailed on September 19, 1996 and November 5,
1996, Paper Nos. 10 and 15, respectively).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007