Appeal No. 2000-0520
Application No. 08/956,160
obviousness are:
Katz 5,029,820 Jul. 9,
1991
The railing assembly set forth in the preamble of
appealed claim 9 (the admitted prior art).1
THE REJECTION
Claims 9 and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over the admitted prior art in view of
Katz.
Attention is directed to the appellants' brief (Paper No.
7) and to the examiner's answer (Paper No. 8) for the
1Claim 9 is a Jepson-type claim (see 37 CFR § 1.75(e)),
and as such its preamble elements are impliedly admitted to be
old in the art. See In re Ehrreich, 590 F.2d 902, 909-10, 200
USPQ 504, 510 (CCPA 1979) and MPEP § 2129. The appellants
have not challenged this implied admission. Despite some
minor inconsistencies in the terminology employed in claim 9,
we understand the admission to encompass a railing assembly
wherein a hollow reinforcing tube extends through the interior
of each of the balusters.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007