Appeal No. 1998-0093
Application No. 08/459,301
indicated that claims 4 and 5 are allowable over the prior
art.
On December 18, 1996, appellant filed an amendment after
final under 37 CFR § 1.116 proposing to cancel claims 3 and 5
and amend claim 1 to remove the terminology that the examiner
considered to be indefinite, i.e., "conventional convection."
In an advisory action dated December 31, 1996, the examiner
indicated that the amendment after final would be entered upon
the filing of an appeal, with the result that claim 4 would be
allowed and claims 1, 2, 6 and 7 would remain rejected,
presumably only on reference grounds.
In the Answer (at 3-4), the examiner repeated the
rejection of claims 1, 6, and 7 based on Huie in view of
Moffat, indicated that claim 2 would be allowable if rewritten
in independent form, and added a new ground of rejection
asserting that claims 1, 6, and 7 are unpatentable under § 103
for obviousness over either one of Forrer and Malick in view
of Huie and Buckingham et al.
On June 6, 1997, appellant filed an amendment canceling
claim 2 and rewriting it as new claim 8 and filed a Reply
Brief responding to the new ground of rejection.
- 2 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007