Appeal 2006-1989
Application 09/772,278
Patent 5,996,948
Examiner also rejected claims 1, 2, and 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) (Final
6-7).
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Buff US 5,503,062 Apr. 2, 1996
(Filed Jan. 5, 1994)
The Examiner indicated that claim 6 is allowable (Final 7).
A copy of the claims 1-3, 5, and 7 under appeal is set forth in the
Claim Appendix of Appellant’s Brief. The copy of claim 4 in the appendix
is in error. Contrary to the appendix, claim 4 as filed and appealed contains
a spelling error (“defing” rather than “defining”) which has yet to be
corrected.
The Examiner concluded that (1) under the three step Pannu process
Appellant’s amendment and statement in the patented file resulted in
surrender of subject matter relating to the lower rim (Final 3-5); and (2) Buff
discloses the limitations of claims 1, 2, and 5 (Final 6-7). See Pannu v. Storz
Instruments, Inc., 258 F.3d 1366, 1371, 59 USPQ2d 1597, 1600 (Fed. Cir.
2001).
- 3 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013