Ex parte MAHALEK et al. - Page 3

                     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,                                    
                                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.                                                                                                                                       
                                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.                                                                                                                     

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

Last modified: November 3, 2007