Appeal No. 97-0972
Application 08/399,571
Reyes 5,290,003 Mar. 01, 1994
Claims 1-12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph.
Claims 1-12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Devney.
Claims 1-12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Gardels.
Claims 1-4, 6-8 and 10-12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Reyes.
The rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, is
explained on pages 2 and 3 of the final rejection. The various
rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) are explained on pages 3 and
4 of the answer.
OPINION
Considering first the rejection of claims 1-12 under 35
U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, it is the examiner’s position
that:
There appears to be an inconsistency between the
language in the preamble and certain portion or
portions in the body of independent claims 1, 6, and
10; thereby makeing the scope of the claims unclear.
For example, the claim language of “a theater seat
hold-down device for maintaining a seat member . . .,
said theater seat hold-down comprising”, as recited in
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007