Appeal No. 97-2244
Application 07/986,521
stand objected to as depending from a rejected base claim.
The subject matter on appeal relates to “vacuum assisted,
vapor recovery fuel nozzles” (specification, page 1). Copies of
claims 28, 29, 31 and 51 appear in the appendix attached to the
appellants’ brief (Paper No. 26). 2
The references relied upon by the examiner as evidence of
anticipation and obviousness are:
Monticup, Jr. et al. (Monticup) 5,004,023 Apr. 2, 1991
Fink, Jr. et al. (Fink) 5,197,523 Mar. 30, 1993
(filed Aug. 5, 1991)
The claims on appeal stand rejected as follows:
a) 28, 29 and 51 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being
anticipated by Fink; and
b) claim 31 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Fink in view of Monticup.
Reference is made to the appellants’ brief (Paper No. 26)
2Our review of the claims on appeal indicates that the
following terms lack a proper antecedent basis (line numbers
correspond to those appearing in the appendix to the brief):
“said shut off means” (claim 51, line 17); “the vapor return
passage” (claim 51, line 25); “the venting passage” (claim 51,
line 26); and “the conical portion” (claim 31, line 5). These
informalities are deserving of correction in any further
prosecution before the examiner.
-2-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007