Appeal No. 98-2126 Page 4
Application No. 08/490,180
Considering first the rejection of claim 42 under 35
U.S.C.
§ 112, second paragraph, the appellant's sole comment regarding
this rejection is that "the definiteness of claim 42 should
have been overcome by the accompanying amendment" (brief, page
7). We must point out, however, that the examiner denied entry
of this amendment (see the advisory action mailed September 29,
1997 (Paper No. 12)). This being the case, we will summarily
affirm the rejection of claim 42 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph.
Turning to the rejection of claims 34 and 45-47 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Keiji, it is the
examiner's position that:
Keiji teaches the invention except for expressly
teaching accommodating the shot and shot material in
first and second containers of a blasting machine.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art, at the time of the invention, to
have accommodated the green compacts and shots of
Keiji in containers since it is customary in the art
to provide such container for containing the material
therein. [Answer, page 5.]
Additionally, the answer states that
whether the non-ferrous metal shot material is
blasted against a metal body or non-ferrous metal
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007