Appeal No. 97-1176
Application 08/003,673
the examiner’s rejection of claims 15, 16 and 19-24 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 and entered a new ground of rejection thereof under
35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, pursuant to our authority under
37 CFR § 1.196(b). Appellants subsequently elected to amend the
claims and have the matter reconsidered by the examiner.
Appellants’ invention pertains to a device for dispensing a
water treatment composition into a toilet tank. A copy of the
appealed claims appears in the appendix to appellants’ brief.
The prior art references of record relied upon by the
examiner in support of a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are:
Bachman 1,321,586 Nov. 11, 1919
Spence (Great Britain) 13,146 July 5, 1893
Ekins (Great Britain) 23,517 Nov. 3, 1908
Hicks (Australian) 240,459 Feb. 2, 1961
Claims 15, 16 and 19-24 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 appellants regard as the invention.
Claims 15, 16 and 19-24 stand further rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 “as being unpatentable over Spence, Ekins,
Bachman and Hicks” (office action mailed August 17, 1995 (Paper
-2-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007