Appeal No. 1996-2844
Application No. 07/955,162
application, claim 3, was added by way of the aforementioned
Amendment (Reply Brief), and the examiner’s Supplemental
Answer indicates that claim 3 is allowed over the art of
record.
Ž the examiner’s Answer incorrectly states that the
"copy of the appealed claims contained in the Appendix to the
brief is correct." In fact, we note that the copy of claim 2
is incorrect in that "fear" on line 3 should instead read
"water".
The following three prior art references are relied upon
by the examiner to support the rejections at issue:
Daignault et al. (Daignault) 3,228,884 Jan. 11,
1966
Hirozawa 4,452,715 June 5,
1984
Van Neste et al. (Van Neste) 4,851,145 July 25,
1989
The following grounds of rejection are before us for
consideration:
I. Claim 1 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being obvious over Van Neste.
II. Claims 1-2 stand rejected for obviousness under 35
U.S.C. § 103 in view of Van Neste taken in combination with
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007