Appeal No. 96-0501
Application 08/101,499
claim 25 lacks antecedent basis, this difference between the
preambles of the claims raises the question of whether claim 25
is intended to be a further limitation on the combination recited
in its parent claim 8, or whether it is drawn to the
subcombination of the “cushion” [sic: cushioning device] recited
in claim 8. This uncertainty renders the bounds of the claimed
subject matter indistinct.
Likewise, the preambles of claims 31 and 32 each recite “A
packing device as in Claim 30," while the preamble of claim 30
recites “In a cushion.” There being no “packing device” recited
in claim 30, it is not clear what apparatus claims 31 and 32 are
intended to encompass; is it only the cushion of claim 30, or the
container and article as well?
Conclusion
The examiner’s decision to reject claims 8, 24, 25, and 30
to 33 is affirmed, and to reject claims 34 to 36 is reversed.
Claims 25, 31 and 32 are rejected pursuant to 37 CFR § 1.196(b).
Any request for reconsideration or modification of this
decision by the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences based
upon the same record must be filed within one month from the date
hereof. 37 CFR § 1.197.
With respect to the new rejection under 37 CFR
-13-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007