Appeal No. 97-0690
Application No. 08/375,094
the final rejection (Paper No. 4, mailed February 16, 1996)
the
examiner only rejected claims 1 through 10 and 15 through 20
under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite,
and claims 1, 9 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Lockwood. Claims 12 through 14, the only other
claims pending in the application, were not rejected by the
examiner, but were objected to and indicated to be allowable
if rewritten in independent form. Thus, only claims 1 through
11 and 15 through 20 are properly before us on appeal, with
the appeal as to claims 12 through 14 being dismissed.
Appellant’s invention relates to a pulsating spraying
device. Claim 1 is representative of the subject matter on
appeal and a copy of that claim, as it appears in the Appendix
to appellant’s brief, is attached to this decision.
The sole prior art reference of record relied upon by the
examiner is:
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007