Appeal 2007-1432
Application 09/141,186
Patent 5,549,673
28. In the First Amendment at page 5, last two full paragraphs, and
in the Second Amendment at page 6, last two full paragraphs, Appellant
argued the following:
The Examiner felt that Claims 14-16 recited patentably
unobvious subject matter because the prior art does not show
the claimed features and the instant disclosure appears to recite
criticality . . . of the specific holding portion, inserting
instrument and engaging means configuration over the prior art,
i.e., faster, simpler, efficient locking.
Claims 14-16 have been rewritten in independent form
and are believed allowable in view of the Examiner’s
comments. All of these claims now include a holding portion[,]
inserting instrument and engaging means.
The argument addressed limitations (1)-(3) [see Finding of Fact 27] found in
Appellant’s amended claims 14-16.
29. On August 21, 1995, the Examiner entered a Final Office
Action (“Final Action”).
30. Claims 14-16 were indicated as allowable. Claims 13 and
18-19 were again rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Koufman, Isshiki, Stevens, and Ripple.
31. On January 25, 1996, Appellants filed an After Final
Amendment (“the After Final Amendment”) responding to the Examiner's
Final Office Action.
32. The After Final Amendment cancelled claims 13 and 18-19.
- 12 -
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013