Appeal 2007-0040
Application 10/170,069
Patent 6,073,699
26. In the Third Amendment, Appellant also argued with respect to
the patentability of newly added claims 28-32:
New claims 28-32 all include the limitation of at least
one roller disposed beneath body parts and entirely exteriorly of
an opening defined by the body parts. EP 171,144
[Stringfellow] has no teaching or suggestion of roller(s).
Taylor, Jr. discloses multiple balls 33 or rollers 33; but Taylor,
Jr. Has [sic] no teaching or suggestion of a roller beneath its
elevators body sections 1 and 2.
27. Appellant’s argument (see above) addressed at least the
following limitation of Appellant’s amended claim 28:
(1) at least one second roller disposed beneath the first and second
body parts and disposed entirely exteriorly of the interior
opening.
Limitation (1) is found in some form in all of newly added
claims 28-32.
28. On December 9, 1999, the Examiner entered a Final Office
Action (“Final Action”).
29. Claims 31-32 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Taylor.
30. Claims 28-30 were indicated as allowable.
31. On December 21, 1999, Appellant filed a Fourth Amendment
(“the Fourth Amendment”) responding to the Examiner's Final Office
Action.
32. The Fourth Amendment canceled claims 31-32.
- 11 -
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013