Appeal No. 97-0256
Application 08/233,215
appeal and dependent claims 2 and 5 are specifically directed to
the embodiment seen in Figures 1 through 3 of the application
drawings, with dependent claim 3 apparently being directed
specifically to the embodiment of Figure 4, while dependent claims
6 and 7, respectively, are directed only to the memo calendars seen
in Figures 5 and 6 of the drawings. As is apparent from a review
of the application drawings and appellant’s specification as
originally filed, the embodiments seen in Figures 1-3, 4, 5 and 6
are each distinctly different from one another and there appears to
be no way that claims drawn to one of the embodiments of Figures 4,
5 or 6 can be dependent from claims drawn to the other embodiment
seen in Figures 1-3. In this regard, we view the respective
embodiments of appellant’s invention as originally filed as being
mutually exclusive of one another. Accordingly, the subject matter
now defined in dependent claims 3, 6 and 7 on appeal finds no
support in the application as filed. Appellant has simply provided
no indication in the disclosure of this application that the
combination now recited in claim 1/3, 1/6, or 1/7 forms any part of
his invention.
To summarize, we note that the examiner’s rejection of claims
1, 6 and 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over PT, is
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007