Appeal No. 2006-0940
Application No. 10/037,548
presented as washers" (page 1 of Reply Brief, third paragraph).
Regarding the § 102 rejection over Newman, appellant contends
that "Newman's patent does not even have any mentioning of a
hook, as well as any mentioning of sealing and replacement of
worn parts" (page 1 of Reply Brief, fourth paragraph).
Appellant also presents arguments against the § 102 rejection
over Dezen that were not in the principal brief. Accordingly
the examiner should respond to the new arguments presented in
the Reply Brief.
Also, although the examiner states that "[t]he statement of
the status of claims contained in the brief is correct" (page 2
of Answer), the examiner has not stated a rejection of claim 9,
nor has the examiner stated that claim 9 is allowable. Hence,
the examiner should clarify on the record whether the final
rejection of claim 9 is maintained or whether claim 9 is
allowed.
This remand to the examiner pursuant to 37 CFR
§ 41.50(a)(1) (effective September 13, 2004, 69 Fed. Reg. 49960
(August 12, 2004), 1286 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 21 (September 7,
2004)) is made for further consideration of a rejection.
Accordingly, 37 CFR § 41.50(a)(2) applies if a Supplemental
-2-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007