Appeal No. 98-0383 Page 3
Application No. 08/549,869
point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the
appellant regards as the invention.2
Claims 1 and 6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Weder ‘229 in view of Culberg.
The examiner’s rejections are explained in the Answer.
The arguments of the appellant in opposition to the
examiner’s positions are set forth in the Brief.
OPINION
The Rejection Under 35 U.S.C. § 112, Second Paragraph
This rejection is directed to claim 1, and is based upon
the examiner’s belief that the phrase “having a variety of
shapes and sizes,” used to describe the gift box, “is
considered indefinite because it is not clear what specific
shape of the gift box is being claimed” (Answer, page 4). The
appellant has acquiesced to this rejection, and we therefore
shall sustain it.
2Although not made the subject of a rejection, the
examiner noted in the Answer that the appellant’s amendment of
December 17, 1996, added new matter to the specification and
to the claims. The appellant has, however, stated that this
material would be removed at the earliest opportunity.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007