Appeal No. 2000-0574
Application No. 08/876,321
can be derived from a reading of exemplary claims 1, 5 and 14,
which appear 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:
Boughner 3,962,761 Jun. 15, 1976
Porch et al. (Porch) 3,966,285 Jun. 29, 1976
MacDonald 4,041,582 Aug. 16,
1977
Kendig 4,079,835 Mar. 21, 1978
Covington 4,123,831 Nov. 7,
1978
The following rejections are before us for review.
(1) Claims 1-3, 8 and 9 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 appellant regards as the invention.
(2) Claims 1-3, 5, 6, 8, 11 and 14 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Porch.
(3) Claims 12 and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Porch.
(4) Claim 15 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Porch in view of MacDonald.
(5) Claims 16 and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Porch in view of Kendig.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007