Appeal No. 1999-2369
Application 08/674,911
U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 13, 15, 33 and 35 as being
unpatentable over Passovoy and Fast.1
III. Additional matter for consideration
Upon return of the application to the technology center,
the examiner should consider reevaluating the patentability of
the appellant’s claims in view of the other prior art
references of record. By way of example, U.S. Patent No.
4,531,337 to Holdiman appears to be particularly relevant to
the subject matter recited in appealed claims 1 and 24.
1 The subject matter recited in appealed claims 27 and 28, as well as in
objected to claims 17 and 18, is not consistent with the underlying
specification. More specifically, the specification describes an extruded
metal wall thicknesses of at least about 0.03 inch (see pages 5, 10 and 11) as
opposed to the at least about 0.02 inch thicknesses recited in claims 27 and
28. In addition, the description of Figure 7 in the specification (see pages
13 and 14) does not provide clear antecedent basis (see 37 CFR § 1.175(d)(1))
for much of the terminology set forth in claims 17 and 18 which presumably
read on the Figure 7 embodiment. These discrepancies are deserving of
correction.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007