Ex parte ASCHENBECK et al. - Page 2




              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