Appeal No. 2004-0575
Application 09/206,005
Claims 1 through 3 and 5 additionally stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over FR ‘272 in view of
Gilroy and Hayashi.
The full text of the examiner's rejections and his response
to the arguments presented by appellant can be found in the final
rejection (Paper No. 24, mailed July 16, 2002) and examiner's
answer (Paper No. 32, mailed February 21, 2003). Rather than
reiterate the arguments appellant has put forth regarding the
above-noted rejections, we make reference to the appeal brief
(Paper No. 31, filed October 29, 2002) and reply brief (Paper No.
33, filed April 28, 2003) for a complete statement of appellant’s
position.
claim 12 ever been discussed by appellant in any proceedings
before the examiner. We additionally make note of another
preliminary amendment filed June 17, 2002, which has likewise not
been clerically entered into the application. This preliminary
amendment also includes a claim 12, which in this instance is an
article claim that purports to be dependent from claim 1. Given
the examiner’s statements in the final rejection mailed July 16,
2002 (Paper No. 24), it appears the examiner has treated this
claim 12 and that it is subject to the present appeal. However,
both appellant and the examiner may wish to consider whether this
claim 12 should in fact be dependent from claim 5 instead of
claim 1, since it appears to provide further limitations on the
“hollow bolt” of claim 5 rather than any structure set forth in
claim 1.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007