Appeal No. 2002-0670
Application 09/416,547
a retention mechanism;
wherein the guide is disposed on a device so that the guide
is capable of slidably moving along the guide channel so that the
retention mechanism may engage the guide therein providing a
restraining force and electrical ground for the device.
The references of record relied upon by the examiner as
evidence of anticipation are:
Steadman 1,527,282 Feb. 24, 1925
Juvet 1,563,864 Dec. 1, 1925
The Rejections
Claims 1 through 3, 6, 7, 14, 16, 18, 19, 23 through 25, 28,
29, 36, 38, 40 and 41 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as
anticipated by Juvet.
Claims 1 through 3, 6, 7, 23 through 25, 28 and 29 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as anticipated by Steadman.
Opinion
We have carefully reviewed the record in this appealed
application. As a result of this review, we have determined that
the applied prior art establishes the lack of novelty of the
claims on appeal. However, inasmuch as the examiner has failed
to properly explain the rejection to the applicant in any of the
office actions or, indeed, in the examiner’s answer, we are
denominating our decision as a rejection under 37 CFR § 1.196(b).
Our reasoning follows.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007