Appeal No. 1999-1661
Application No. 08/801,862
a distance sensor arranged in said cavity and engageable
with an interior portion of one of the walls to actuate a
response signal when said walls move toward each other, said
distance sensor and said interior portion being spaced at a
second distance when in said undeformed position, said second
distance being substantially less than said first distance.
The Examiner relies on the following prior art:
Kramer et al. (Kramer) 5,296,658 Mar. 22,
1994
Claims 1, 5, and 6 stand finally rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Kramer.1
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the
Examiner, reference is made to the Briefs and Answer for the 2
respective details thereof.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the subject matter on
appeal,the rejection advanced by the Examiner and the evidence
of obviousness relied upon by the Examiner as support for the
rejection. We have, likewise, reviewed and taken into
1 In response to the amendment after final rejection filed
July 27, 1998, the Examiner withdrew the 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph, rejection of claims 1-13.
2 The Appeal Brief was filed December 30, 1998. In
response to the Examiner’s Answer dated March 16, 1999, a
Reply Brief was filed May 17, 1999 which was acknowledged and
entered by the Examiner on November 17, 1999.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007