Appeal No. 2000-1612
Application 08/938,844
had previously filed his Notice of Appeal (Paper No. 6,
December 28, 1998) in response to an earlier final rejection.
Claims 2, 3, 5 and 7 remain in the application. Of those
claims, claims 2, 3 and 7 stand rejected on prior art and are
before us for consideration on appeal. Claim 5 has no prior
art rejection against it and is presumed to be allowable if
rewritten in independent form. The rejection of claims 2, 3
and 5 in Paper No. 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, was apparently overcome by appellant’s amendment
filed September 20, 1999, since this rejection was not
repeated in the examiner’s answer. Claims 1, 4 and 6 have 1
been canceled.
Appellant’s invention is directed to a combination chair
(15), support platform (1, 3) and computer mouse (19). As
noted more particularly on page 3 of the specification,
appellant indicates that the invention
1 Although the examiner has approved the amendment filed
on September 20, 1999 for entry and it appears on the face of
that paper to have been entered, it has NOT been properly
entered with regard to independent claim 7. Correction of
this oversight is necessary.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007