Appeal No. 1998-3425
Application 08/502,977
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to appellant’s specification and claims,
to the applied prior art references, and to the respective
positions articulated by appellant and the examiner. As a
consequence of our review, we have made the determinations
which follow.
Looking first at the examiner's rejection of claims 4
through 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, we note
that the examiner has taken the position that the recitations
in the last clause of independent claim 8 regarding “a roll of
polyethylene bags” and “a single central slot” represent a
double inclusion of the same phrases previously recited, e.g.,
in lines 1 and 2 of the claim. We do not agree. Like
appellant, we view the recitation in the preamble of claim 8
on appeal as merely setting forth the general type of
dispenser being claimed, i.e., a dispenser “for dispensing
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007