Appeal No. 96-3615
Application 08/237,567
unpatentable over Westhof in view of Alonso.
The rejections are explained in the examiner’s answer
(Paper No. 15, mailed May 13, 1996).
The opposing viewpoints of appellant are set forth in the
brief (Paper No. 14, filed December 15, 1995).
The 35 U.S.C. § 112, Second Paragraph, Rejection
(rejection (a))
In rejecting claims 23, 24, 29 and 30 under 35 U.S.C. §
112, second paragraph, the examiner alleges that the term
“said arbor,” which appears in various places in claims 23,
24, 29 and 30, lacks proper antecedent basis. For the reasons
stated by appellant on pages 8 and 9 of the brief, the
examiner’s position in this regard is not well taken.
The examiner also considers claim 23 to be unclear
because (answer, page 4):
I. Part (i) of (a) [of claim 23] refers to the
container having [an] aperture.
Part (vi) of (a) [of claim 23] refers to the
container having an aperture. Are the apertures of
parts (i) and (vi) the same apertures or different
ones? How are these apertures related to each
other?
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007