Appeal No. 1999-0279 Page 11
Application No. 08/926,986
in the art would not have been able to make the claimed "first
and second dust boots" as recited in claim 5 without undue
experimentation.
In addition, while the examiner is correct that the
appellants' disclosure does not show or describe any means
that would allow adjustable attachment of the boots, we note
that such adjustable attachment is not claimed.
For the reasons stated above, the decision of the
examiner to reject claims 3 through 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
first paragraph, is reversed.
2(...continued)
of the art, and (8) the breadth of the claims. See In re
Wands, 858 F.2d 731, 737, 8 USPQ2d 1400, 1404 (Fed. Cir. 1988)
citing Ex parte Forman, 230 USPQ 546, 547 (Bd. Pat. App. &
Int. 1986).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007