Ex parte VALLAURI et al. - Page 2




                     Appeal No. 1996-3350                                                                                                                                              
                     Application 08/187,114                                                                                                                                            


                     elastic sleeve for electrical cable joints having specified                                                                                                       
                     physical characteristics (Brief, page 2).   As stated by                                1                                                                         
                     appellants, “the rejected claims stand or fall together.”                                                                                                         
                     (Brief, page 4).  Pursuant to this statement and the                                                                                                              
                     provisions of 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7)(1995), we select claim 13                                                                                                      
                     from the group of claims and decide this appeal as to this                                                                                                        
                     ground of rejection on the basis of claim 13 alone.  A copy of                                                                                                    
                     illustrative claim 13 is attached as an Appendix to this                                                                                                          
                     decision.                                                                                                                                                         
                                The examiner has relied upon the following references as                                                                                               
                     evidence of obviousness:                                                                                                                                          
                     Nelson                         4,363,842          Dec. 14,                                                                                                        
                     1982                                                                                                                                                              
                     Clabburn                       4,383,131          May  10,                                                                                                        
                     1983                                                                                                                                                              
                                Claims 5, 6 and 12-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §                                                                                                 
                     103 as unpatentable over Clabburn in view of Nelson (Answer,                                                                                                      
                     page 3).   We affirm the examiner’s rejection but for2                                                                                                                                                

                                1 All references and citations are from the Brief dated                                                                                                
                     Dec. 18, 1995, Paper No. 42, which replaced the Brief dated                                                                                                       
                     Oct. 18, 1995, Paper No. 39.                                                                                                                                      
                                2 The final rejection of claims 5, 6 and 12-20 for                                                                                                     
                     obviousness-type double patenting over claims 1-13 and 27-39                                                                                                      
                     of U.S. Patent No. 5,294,752 was obviated by appellants’                                                                                                          
                                                                                          2                                                                                            





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007