Appeal No. 1999-1037
Application 08/804,284
us for review:1
1) claims 1, 3 and 4, unpatentable over Boedecker in view
of Carney ‘326; and
2) claims 11, 12 and 15, unpatentable over Boedecker in
view of Carney ‘112.
Rejection 1
Considering first the examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 3
and 4 as being unpatentable over Boedecker in view of Carney
‘326, the examiner considers that Boedecker discloses the
subject matter of claim 1 except for a structural
reinforcement “comprising a telescoping bracket assembly.” In
particular, the examiner considers that Boedecker’s sheet-like
1In the final rejection, claims 1, 3, 4, 11, 12, 15, and
20-22 were also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph. The rejection of claims 20-22 on this ground has
been expressly withdrawn. See page 2 of the answer.
Regarding the rejection of claims 1, 3, 4, 11, 12 and 15 under
35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, since these claims have
been amended subsequent to the final rejection in such a
manner so as to apparently overcome the examiner’s criticisms
thereof, and since no mention of this rejection has been made
by the examiner in the answer, we presume that the examiner
also has withdrawn the final rejection of claims 1, 3, 4, 11,
12, and 15 on this ground. Ex parte Emm, 118 USPQ 180, 181
(Bd. App. 1957).
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007