Ex parte GAPCO - Page 10

          Appeal No. 1999-1480                                                        
          Application No. 08/523,330                                                  

          bond” as described and claimed by appellant is not a                        
          “permanent bond” since it is not intended to last indefinitely              
          without change and the key and handle can be easily separated               
          when desired without destroying any portion of either of the                
          components. Thus, we sustain the examiner’s rejection of claim              
          66, under 35 U.S.C.                                                         
           112, first paragraph, because the thermoexpansive clamping                
          arrangement disclosed by appellant clearly does not provide a               
          “permanent bond” between the key and the spherical handle.                  

               Further, under the provisions of 37 C.F.R.  1.196(b), we              
          enter the following new ground of rejection against                         
          appellant's claims 63-65 and 67-70:                                         

               Claims 63-65 and 67-70 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.                   
          112, first paragraph, as containing subject matter which was                
          not described in the specification in such a way as to                      
          reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the               
          appellant, at the time the invention was filed, had possession              
          of the claimed invention.  Specifically, appellant has failed               
          to disclose a “permanent bond” as set forth in claim 63 and                 

Page:  Previous  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007