Appeal No. 1996-3423
Serial No. 08/314,471
Boston 4,495,064 Jan. 22, 1985
Senn 5,378,349 Jan.
3, 1995
The rejections are:
Claims 31, 32, 34, 37-39 and 46-51 are rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Senn in
view of Singleton.
Claims 31, 32, 34, 37-39 and 46-51 are rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Hettinger in view of Singleton and Boston.
Decision
In rendering our decision, we have considered the
entire specification and record.
Claims 31, 32, 34, 37-39 and 46-51 are rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Senn in
view of Singleton.
We begin our review of this rejection by analyzing
representative claim 37.
The claim is in Jepson -type format. As such,1
"appellants impliedly admit that the subject matter
recited in combination in the preamble (i.e., up to ‘the
improvement being’) is old in the art," In re Ehrreich,
1 Ex parte Jepson, 1917 Dec. Comm’r Pats. 62 (Comm’r Pats. 1917).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007