Ex Parte SAARIKKO - Page 11



          Appeal No. 2000-1592                                                         
          Application 08/661,220                                                       

          14, 15, 21 and 24 of Léman in view of Hellier.  As to dependent              
          claims 26 and 27, the use of the word "proximate" with respect to            
          the front and rear walls in a relative term which is subject to              
          many interpretations and, in our view, clearly met by the                    
          combined teachings and showings of Léman in view of Hellier as               
          argued earlier.                                                              
               Finally, because we sustain the rejection of the earlier                
          noted claims on appeal in accordance with the line of reasoning              
          not advanced by the examiner before in the answer, we will also              
          denominate this affirmance a new ground of rejection.                        
               We have sustained the rejection of claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 11,            
          12, and 14-24.  The affirmance of these claims has been                      
          denominated as a new ground of refection within 37 CFR §                     
          1.196(b).  We have reversed the rejection of claims 5, 8, 9, 10,             
          13, and 25-27.  We have also instituted a separate, new rejection            
          of claims 25-27 under this rule as well.  Accordingly, the                   
          decision of the examiner is affirmed-in-part.                                






                                          11                                           




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007