Appeal No. 2002-0494 Page 4
Application No. 29/102,729
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellant regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the final
rejection (Paper No. 9, mailed December 7, 2000) and the answer (Paper No. 14,
mailed October 10, 2001) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the
rejections, and to the brief (Paper No. 13, filed July 20, 2001) for the appellant's
arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
the appellant's specification and claim, and to the respective positions articulated by the
appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of our review, we make the
determinations which follow.
Rejections based on new matter
We sustain the rejection of the design claim under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph, as failing to comply with the description requirement thereof, and the
rejection of the design claim under 35 U.S.C. § 251 as based upon new matter.
The examiner determined (final rejection, pp. 2-4; answer, p. 4) that the design
claim violated 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, and 35 U.S.C. § 251 by adding new
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007