Appeal No. 2002-2021 Page 2
Application No. 09/024,077
BACKGROUND
The appellant's invention relates to a vibratory feeder of the type used to move
objects or particulate matter from one location to another along a generally horizontal
path. An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of exemplary
claim 1, which has been reproduced below.
The prior art references of record relied upon by the examiner in rejecting the
appealed claims are:
Musschoot 5,713,457 Feb. 3, 1998
Semenov (Russian Patent)1 RU 2000264 Sep. 7, 1993
The following are the standing rejections:
(1) Claims 1-7 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as being “non-enable[d]” and
“not supported by the specification” (Answer, page 4).2
(2) Claims 6, 7 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as containing subject
matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one
skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to
make and/or use the invention.
(3) Claims 1-7, 11, 12 and 14-16 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 applicant regards as the invention.
1Our understanding of this foreign language reference was obtained from a PTO translation, a
copy of which is enclosed.
2No rejection as such was set forth by the examiner in the Answer or in Paper No. 14. However,
from the explanation provided under the heading of 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, in these two papers,
it is clear that the examiner’s intention was to make this rejection.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007