Ex parte KENDRICK - Page 3




                 Appeal No. 1999-2064                                                                                     Page 3                        
                 Application No. 08/619,853                                                                                                             


                                                                   BACKGROUND                                                                           
                          1. The file record of this application indicates that in                                                                      
                 the final rejection (Paper No. 12, mailed November 9, 1998)                                                                            
                 claims 29-48 were rejected under 35 U.S.C.  103(a) as being                                                                           
                 unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 5,197,765  to Mowry, Jr. et                2                                                         
                 al. (hereafter "Mowry").  This rejection was maintained in the                                                                         
                 Examiner's Answer (Paper No. 15, mailed January 11, 1999).                                                                             


                          2. The file record of this application indicates that on                                                                      
                 pages 4-5 of the brief (Paper No. 14, filed November 30, 1998)                                                                         
                 the appellant argued that                                                                                                              
                          [i]t appears in making this rejection that the Mowry                                                                          
                          reference was considered in its entirety as prior art,                                                                        
                          when in fact [it] is not.  Attention is directed to the                                                                       
                          Declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 filed in the parent                                                                            
                          application (a copy, with attachments, was enclosed in                                                                        
                          this case).                                                                                                                   
                 The appellant then stated that only claim 12 of Mowry may be                                                                           
                 considered prior art and that the application of the entire                                                                            
                 Mowry reference as prior art is erroneous.                                                                                             




                          2Issued March 30, 1993 based upon Application No.                                                                             
                 07/729,363, filed July 12, 1991.                                                                                                       







Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007