Appeal No. 98-2117 Page 3
Application No. 08/370,170
Bancroft 2,852,113 Sep. 16, 1958
Redman 4,376,359 Mar. 15, 1983
Kloke 4,621,472 Nov. 11, 1986
Durham, Jr. 4,949,506 Aug. 21, 1990
The claims on appeal stand rejected in the following
manner:3
(1) Claims 35-43 and 45-49 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being clearly anticipated by Redman;
(2) Claims 35-49 and 53 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Bancroft in view of Redman;
(3) Claim 50 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Bancroft in view of Redman and Kloke; and
(4) Claims 51 and 52 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Bancroft in view of Redman and Durham.
Initially, we note that an anticipation rejection cannot
be predicated on an ambiguous reference. In re Turlay, 304
F.2d 893, 899, 134 USPQ 355, 360 (CCPA 1962). Moreover, “A
rejection based on section 103 must rest on a factual basis,
3The advisory actions (see footnote 2) indicate that the
final rejection of claims 46-49 and 59 under 35 U.S.C. 112,
second paragraph, has been overcome by the amendments filed
subsequent to final rejection.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007