Appeal No. 98-1350
Application No. 08/607,549
However, we observe that the examiner has not provided any
rejection of claims 3 through 6 and 14 in the final rejection
mailed February 7, 1997 (Paper No. 15). Accordingly, the appeal
as to claims 3 through 6 and 14 is dismissed and only the
examiner’s rejections of claims 1, 2, 7 through 13 and 15 through
29 are before us for review in the present appeal.
Appellants’ invention is directed to a blade sharpening
assembly seen in Figure 1 of the application drawings.
Independent claims 1, 16 and 22 are representative of the subject
matter on appeal and a copy of those claims, reproduced from the
Appendix to appellants’ brief, is attached to this decision.
The prior art references of record relied upon by the
examiner in rejecting the appealed claims are:
Shell 4,142,809 Mar. 6, 1979
Storm et al. (Storm) 4,441,279 Apr. 10, 1984
LeVine 4,714,239 Dec. 22, 1987
Anthon et al. (Anthon) 5,363,602 Nov. 15, 1994
(effectively filed Sep. 11, 1989)
Claims 1, 2, 7 through 13, 15 through 17, 19 through 27 and
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007