Appeal No. 1999-2035 Page 2
Application No. 07/772,698
BACKGROUND
The appellant's invention relates to an improved surface
for a tennis court. An understanding of the invention can be
derived from a reading of exemplary claim 32, which appears in
the appendix to the appellant's brief.
The prior art references of record relied upon by the
examiner in rejecting the appealed claims are:
Healy 1,897,801 Feb. 14, 1933
Grant et al. 4,045,022 Aug. 30, 1977
(Grant)
Bourgin et al. 2,553,001 2 Apr. 12, 1985
(Bourgin) (France)
Claims 32 through 37 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to
particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter
which the appellant regards as the invention.
2In determining the teachings of Bourgin, we will rely on
the translation provided by the PTO. A copy of the
translation is attached for the appellant's convenience.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007