Appeal No. 1998-1263
Application No. 08/351,993
1" accompanying the revised supplemental reply brief (Paper No.
27).
As evidence of anticipation and obviousness, the examiner
has applied the documents listed below:
Du Bois 2,671,532 Mar. 9, 1954
Luedtke et al 2,964,137 Dec. 13, 1960
(Luedtke)
Stanton 3,018,852 Jan. 30, 1962
Chamberlain 3,138,406 Jun. 23, 1964
Fisher 3,731,776 May 8, 1973
Halverson et al 4,605,440 Aug. 12, 1986
(Halverson)
Guichard 4,703,837 Nov. 3, 1987
The following rejections are before us for review.1
1. Claims 1 through 3, 7 through 12, 16, 17, 19, 21, 22, 24,
and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Chamberlain.
1 Rejections 7 through 11 do not appear in the final
rejection (Paper No. 7) and are clearly, therefore, new grounds
of rejection. Like appellant, it is quite disconcerting to us to
observe that the rules regarding new grounds of rejection do not
appear to have been observed. Lack of conformity with the rules
in this matter is appropriately addressed by petition, not
appeal. Since appellant has argued the merits of the new
rejections in the reply brief, we shall address those rejections.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007