Ex parte MUZQUIZ - Page 2




          Appeal No. 1998-3425                                                         
          Application 08/502,977                                                       


          Appellant’s invention relates to a dispenser for                             
          dispensing single polyethylene bags from a roll of such bags.                
          More particularly, the claimed subject matter, exemplified by                
          independent claim 8, addresses the combination of a dispenser                
          and a roll of polyethylene bags of a specific construction,                  
          which bag construction cooperates with the structure of the                  
          dispenser in a particular manner to enable only a single bag                 
          at a time to be dispensed from the roll of bags.  A copy of                  
          independent claim 8 can be found in the Appendix to                          
          appellant’s brief.                                                           


          The prior art references relied upon by the examiner in                      
          rejecting the appealed claims are:                                           
          Gluck                        2,507,403          May   9, 1950                
          Shimasaki                    5,097,998          Mar. 24, 1992                
          Wilfong, Jr. et al.          5,207,368          May   4, 1993                
          (Wilfong)                                                                    
          Marshall                     0427365A2          May  15, 1991                
          (European Patent Application)                                                

          Claims 4 through 9 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 appellant regards as the invention.                                    

                                           2                                           




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007