Appeal No. 96-3157 Page 3
Application 08/088,136
BACKGROUND
The appellant's invention relates to a method of making
individualized restaurant menus. An understanding of the
invention can be derived from a reading of exemplary claim 1,
which appears on pages 1-2 of the appendix to the appellant's
brief.
The prior art reference of record relied upon by the
examiner in rejecting the appealed claims is:
Madsen et al. (Madsen) 4,954,954 Sept. 4, 1990
Claims 1, 2, 6, 8 to 12 and 19 to 21 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject
matter.
Claims 1, 2, 6, 8 to 12 and 19 to 21 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 the appellant regards as the invention.
Claims 20 and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007