Ex Parte CROYLE - Page 2




              Appeal No. 2002-1778                                                                  Page 2                
              Application No. 09/285,078                                                                                  


                                                    BACKGROUND                                                            
                     The appellant's invention relates to a holder for a wrist corsage and                                
              improvements in the attachment of a flower corsage to a wrist corsage holder                                
              (specification, p. 1).  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:                                                                                        
              Kaber                               2,242,975                           May 20, 1941                        
              Gallagher                           3,949,568                           Apr. 13, 1976                       
              Moore                               5,553,326                           Sep. 10, 1996                       
              Jacks                               GB 625,705                          July 1, 1949                        



                     Claims 1, 6, 7 and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being                                  
              unpatentable over Jacks in view of Gallagher.                                                               


                     Claims 2 to 5 and 8 to 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being                              
              unpatentable over Jacks in view of Gallagher as applied to claims 1 and 7 above, and                        
              further in view of Kaber and Moore.1                                                                        

                     1 In the answer (pp. 3 & 6-7), the examiner withdrew the rejection of claims 1, 7 and 12 under       
              35 U.S.C. § 112 that was advanced in the final rejection.  Additionally, while the answer specifically includes
                                                                                                (continued...)            






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

Last modified: November 3, 2007