Ex parte CADDEN - Page 2




          Appeal No. 2000-0209                                       Page 2           
          Application No. 08/693,985                                                  


                                     BACKGROUND                                       
               The appellant's invention relates to a suspension system.              
          A copy of the claims under appeal is set forth 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:                              
          Hayes                    2,576,935                     Dec.  4,             
          1951                                                                        
          Masser                   3,406,983                     Oct. 22,             
          1968                                                                        
          Raidel                   4,114,923                     Sep. 19,             
          1978                                                                        
          Snyder                   5,346,247                     Sep. 13,             
          1994                                                                        
          Brandt                   5,458,359                     Oct. 17,             
          1995                                                                        
          Baxter                   5,470,096                     Nov. 28,             
          1995                                                                        



               Claims 2, 3/2, 4, 5 and 10 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.                               










Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007