Appeal No. 1998-1426
Application No. 08/315,350
We have also reviewed the teachings of Sharp relied upon
by the examiner along with Durkop, Bliss and Reese in the
rejection of claim 35 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). However, it is
our conclusion that the teachings of Sharp do nothing to
provide for that which we have indicated above to be lacking
in the basic combination of Durkop, Bliss and Reese.
Accordingly, the examiner’s rejection of dependent claim 35
under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) will not be sustained.
REMAND TO THE EXAMINER
This application is remanded to the examiner for
consideration of a new ground of rejection.
While we have not sustained the examiner’s rejection of
independent claim 33 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Durkop in view of Bliss and Reese, for the
reasons stated above, it appears to us that the cited patent
to Reese shows each and every feature of appellants’ claim 33,
and that a rejection of appealed claim 33 under 35 U.S.C. §
102 as being fully anticipated by Reese should be considered
during any further prosecution of this application before the
examiner.
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007