Appeal No. 2004-1302
Application No. 09/789,757
(6) claims 6 and 7, rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Blanco in view of Wynalda and further in
view of Corey; and
(7) claims 11 and 28, rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Blanco in view of Wynalda and further in
view of Dallmer.
Discussion
Rejection (1)
Claims 9 and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph, as being based on a disclosure that does not enable
one of ordinary skill in the art to make and use the claimed
invention.
Claim 9 depends from claim 1 through claims 3-7 and claim 15
depends from claim 1 through claims 3-5. Claims 9 and 15 as a
whole are directed to an “insert” attachable to the boss (claim
1), wherein the “insert” is a rosette (claim 5) that is either
“integrally molded” with the tray (claim 9), or may be connected
to the tray by “co-molding or co-injection” (claim 15).
The rationale for the examiner’s Section 112, first
paragraph, rejection is found on pages 2-3 of the answer, wherein
the examiner states that claims 9 and 15 “while being enabling
for either a rosette as an insert or as an integrally molded
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007