Ex parte GLOVER - Page 2




            Appeal No. 1998-2482                                                                              
            Application No. 08/533,429                                                                        


                   Representative independent claim 1 is reproduced as follows:                               
                         1.  A gasket system for attenuating the propagation of electro-                      
                   magnetic interference, comprising:                                                         
                         a pair of deflectable leg members disposed relative to each other to                 
                   cause said leg members to deflect away from each other when said gasket                    
                   system is positioned between two opposing substrates and the substrates                    
                   are drawn together so that said leg members provide dual contact with one                  
                   of the substrates to substantially attenuate electromagnetic interference                  
                   across said gasket system.                                                                 
                   The examiner relies on the following references:                                           
                   Hadley et al. (Hadley)          3,304,360           Feb. 14, 1967                          
                   Bogner                          4,396,795           Aug. 02, 1983                          
                   Cantrell et al. (Cantrell)      5,252,782           Oct. 12, 1993                          
                   Claims 1-22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.  112, first paragraph, as relying on           
            a specification which lacks an adequate written description.                                      
                   Claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 9, 10, 14, 15, 17 and 19 stand further rejected under 35 U.S.C.        
            102(b) as anticipated by Hadley.                                                                  
                   Claims 3-5, 11-13, 18 and 20-22 stand further rejected under 35 U.S.C.  103 as            
            unpatentable over Hadley in view of Cantrell.                                                     
                   Claims 8 and 16 stand further rejected under 35 U.S.C.  103 as unpatentable over          
            Hadley in view of Bogner.                                                                         
                   Reference is made to the brief and answer for the respective positions of appellant        
            and the examiner.                                                                                 


                                                      2                                                       





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007