Appeal No. 1999-2726
Application No. 90/020,635
number of inconsistencies between drawing figures, unclear
depictions of parts in the drawings, etc., as items forming
the basis for rejection (1). However, none of these reasons
concern the claimed subject matter, and we consider that one
of ordinary skill would not have to engage in undue
experimentation in order to make and use what is recited in
the appealed claims.
Rejection (1) therefore will not be sustained.
This is not to say, however, that we do not consider that
the items enumerated by the examiner do not have merit and
need not be corrected. For example, since the tongue and
groove structure 43, 44 shown in Fig. 8 is an alternative to
the hinge 15 shown in Fig. 2 (as disclosed on page 4, lines 3
to 5), Fig. 8 should be described on page 3 as showing a
second embodiment of the invention. However, these items
constitute a basis for objecting to the specification and/or
drawings, rather than for rejecting the claims under § 112.
Cf. Ex parte Milner, 21 USPQ 589, 590 (Bd. Apps. 1933).
An additional potential basis for objection which we have
noted concerns Fig. 7. In that Figure, the element which
extends from pivot 32 to end 38 is shown as being nearer to
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007