Appeal No. 1999-1120
Application 08/592,562
and said side wall for separating said internal
ridge from said abutting engagement with said
external ridge when a prying force is applied to
said prying means whereby said cover means is
removable from said clip members.
The examiner relies on no prior art.
Claims 43 through 52 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101
and under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.
Rather than repeat the arguments of appellant and the
examiner, we make reference to the brief and the answer for
the respective details thereof.
OPINION
We have considered the rejections advanced by the
examiner in the supporting arguments. We have, likewise,
reviewed the appellant’s arguments set forth in the brief.
We reverse.
The examiner rejects claims 43 through 52 at pages 3 and
4 of the examiner’s answer under the two grounds of rejection
i.e., 35 U.S.C. § 101 and 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph,
citing "Ex parte Beeson" and "Ex parte Rubsam". The rational
for both grounds of rejection is, according to the examiner,
that the protective cover assembly and the re-entry tool are
two different articles of manufacture which are not
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007