Appeal No. 99-0629 Page 2
Application No. 08/778,059
application, have been indicated as allowable (final
rejection, page 4).2
We AFFIRM-IN-PART and REMAND.
BACKGROUND
The appellant's invention relates to a projectile
apparatus adapted to be worn on the hand of a user. An
understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading
of exemplary claims 17 and 25, which appear in the appendix to
the examiner's answer.3
The prior art references of record relied upon by the
examiner in rejecting the appealed claims are:
Breneman et al. (Breneman) 3,453,774 Jul. 8,
1969
Tsao 4,848,307 Jul.
18, 1989
2We remind the appellant and the examiner that 37 CFR § 1.175(b)(1)
requires that, for any error corrected which is not covered by a reissue
declaration, "applicant must submit a supplemental oath or declaration stating
that every error arose without any deceptive intention on the part of the
applicant."
3As noted by the examiner (answer, page 3), the copies of claims 17
through 26 in the appendix to the appellant's brief do not accurately reflect
the claims in the record.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007