Appeal No. 1999-0636 Page 17
Application No. 08/828,375
For the foregoing reasons, we shall sustain the
examiner's rejection of claims 25 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Johnston in view of La Mell.
REMAND TO THE EXAMINER
We remand the application to the examiner for
consideration of the following issues:
(1) Do claims 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 10, 16, 18, 20-24 and 26-28
particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter
which the appellant regards as the invention, as required by
the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112? In particular:
(a) Would one of ordinary skill in the art reading the
appellant's disclosure understand what is meant by "said
partition being pivotably secured to said housing means such
that it is expandable at an acute angle to said axis" as
recited in claim 20 (and incorporated by all claims depending
therefrom)?
(b) Is the recitation in claims 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 10, 18,
22, 23, 27 and 28 (and incorporated by all claims depending
from these claims) that the housing means is "installed,"
"mounted" or "in engagement with" a wall or a finished surface
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007