Appeal No. 1999-1120
Application 08/592,562
permanently assembled together in a finished end product.
Appellant has analyzed in detail the Beeson and the Rubsam
decisions at pages 5 through 9 of the brief. Appellant also
cites the Manual of Practice of Examining Procedure, §
706.03(a), which serves as a guideline for the rejections of
claims under 35 U.S.C. § 101. We agree with appellant that
rejections on the ground of aggregation of articles of
different categories should be based upon a lack of
cooperation between the elements of the claim, for example, a
washing machine associated with a dial telephone. However, in
this case the re-entry tool is interrelated to the cover
assembly for the protecting of the wires and is used to pry
open the cover for servicing of the cables. Therefore, we are
not persuaded by the examiner’s position that the claims call
for two different articles of manufacture, and, therefore, are
not properly patentable under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Appellant has also argued the rejection of claims 43
through 52 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph at pages 9
through 11 of the brief. The grounds of rejection by the
examiner being the same as for the rejection under 35 U.S.C. §
101, the rationale for not sustaining the examiner’s rejection
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007