Appeal No. 1999-0880
Application No. 08/700,610
(Pinnow ‘397) (filed effective Nov. 1, 1983)
Claims 20, 21, 33, 35 through 39, 41 and 44 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as being
vague and indefinite. Claims 20 through 45 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 251 as being based on new matter added to
the patent for which reissue is sought. Claims 20 through 45
stand further rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph,
as relying on an inadequate written description. Still
further, claims 20 through 45 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103 based on five alternative rejections: Tsubaki and Early;
either one of Pinnow ‘397 or Pinnow ‘046 in view of Tolson and
Early; or either one of Pinnow ‘397 or Pinnow ‘046 in view of
Tsubaki and Early.
Reference is made to the briefs and answer for the
respective positions of appellants and the examiner.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the evidence before us
including, inter alia, the arguments by appellants and the
examiner, the Rhyne, Willmott and Rolls declarations, Special
Master reports and the October 13, 1999 Federal Circuit
decision in Overhead Door Corporation and GMI Holdings, Inc v.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007