Appeal No. 1998-0241 Page 2
Application No. 08/465,373
was canceled (see Paper No. 9). Consequently, claims 1, 2, 4, 6 and 8-11 stand rejected,
claims 3 and 5 stand objected to as being dependent on a rejected base claim and claims 12 and
20-22 stand allowed. Claims 13-19 were canceled prior to the final rejection.
BACKGROUND
The appellants' invention relates to a method of distributing fibers by applying low
frequency sound. An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of
exemplary claim 1, which is reproduced in the opinion section of this decision, infra.
The prior art reference of record relied upon by the examiner in rejecting the appealed
claims is:
McCardell Troth, Jr. (Troth) 3,477,103 Nov. 11, 1969
The following rejections are before us for review.1
1. Claim 10 stands 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 appellants
regard as the invention.
2. Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 9 and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Troth.
1The rejection of claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, was overcome by the amendment in
Paper No. 9 (see advisory action, Paper No. 10).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007