Appeal No. 1999-2850
Application No. 09/042,861
Walker 5,071,376 Dec.10, 1991
Marrison et al. (Marrison) 5,145,213 Sep. 08, 1992
Fushimoto et al. (Fushimoto) 5,175,563 Dec. 29, 1992
Gee 5,186,079 Feb. 16, 1993
Zinsmeyer et al. (Zinsmeyer) 5,383,733 Jan. 24, 1995
Kanoll 5,443,372 Aug. 22, 1995
Claims 13 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph.
Claims 1-12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103. As evidence of obviousness,
the examiner cites either one of Zinsmeyer or Fushimoto in view of Kanoll, Gee, Marrison,
Walker, Fabrizio, Hanke, Trigilio, Norris and Anderson.
Reference is made to the briefs and answer for the respective positions of
appellants and the examiner.
OPINION
Turning first to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, the examiner does not clearly
indicate on which section (enablement, written description, or best mode) of the first
paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 he relies. However, since the examiner questions how
deformable tabs deform without breaking in response to a resistance to prevent damage
to the system and it is clear, from page 18 of the specification, that there is definite support
for such deformable tabs, the examiner appears to be basing the rejection on the
enablement clause of 35 U.S.C. § 112.
The examiner contends that it is not known what structure provides the capability of
deformable tabs. The examiner understands how frangible tabs are used to break
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007