Appeal No. 1996-2113
Application No. 08/192,220
The examiner has relied upon the following references as
evidence of obviousness:
Massie 2,561,524 July 24,
1951
Hill et al. (Hill) 2,955,100 Oct. 4,
1960
New et al. (New) 3,337,493 Aug. 22,
1967
Kilbourne 3,413,253 Nov. 26,
1968
Parker 4,247,664 Jan. 27,
1981
All of the claims on appeal stand rejected under 35
U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over Hill, Parker, Kilbourne, and New
alone or combined with Massie (Answer, paragraph bridging
pages 2-3). We reverse the examiner’s rejections for reasons1
which follow.
OPINION
The examiner’s rejection is stated as follows (Answer,
page 3):
1The final rejection of claims 1 through 4 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, first and second paragraphs, has not been repeated in
the Answer (see the final rejection dated Oct. 21, 1994, Paper
No. 6, page 3). Accordingly, we consider this rejection as
withdrawn by the examiner. See Paperless Accounting v. Bay
Area Rapid Transit Sys., 804 F.2d 659, 663, 231 USPQ 649, 652
(Fed. Cir. 1986).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007