Appeal No. 1999-0052
Application 08/660,663
appellants subsequently canceled finally rejected claims 1 and
12
and amended finally rejected claims 2, 9, 10, 14 and 18 (see
the paper filed March 17, 1998, Paper No. 14). In response,
the examiner withdrew the 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph,
rejection which had been set forth in the final rejection and
allowed claims 2, 9, 11, 14 and 18 through 20 (see the
advisory action dated March 27, 1998, Paper No. 16). As a
result, this appeal now involves the standing prior art
rejections of claims 3 through 7, 10, 13 and 15 through 17.
Claim 8, the only other claim pending in the application,
stands objected to as depending from a rejected base claim.
The subject matter on appeal relates to “an apparatus and
method for protecting automotive vehicles from damage by flood
waters” (specification, page 1). Claims 3 and 15 are
illustrative and read as follows:2
2 The terms “said other end wall” in claim 10, “said lower
plastic container” in claims 16 and 17, and “said . . . wall
panels” in claims 16 and 17 lack a proper antecedent basis.
These informalities are deserving of correction in the event
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007