Appeal No. 97-3195
Application 08/387,419
depends from independent claim 4. However, neither claim 4 nor
claim 17 has an antecedent basis for “said upwardly extending
retaining wall” (claim 17, lines 2 and 3).
In summary, this panel of the board has:
reversed the rejection of claims 1 through 3, 7, and 9 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Sanders;
reversed the rejection of claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Sanders; and
affirmed the rejection of claims 4, 5, 11 through 14, 16,
and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Sanders in view of Griffin, but reversed the rejection of claims
6 and 15 on the same statutory ground.
Additionally, we have introduced a new ground of rejection
pursuant to 37 CFR § 1.196(b).
The decision of the examiner is affirmed-in-part.
12
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007