Appeal No. 1998-2019 Page 3
Application No. 08/398,752
2. Claims 1-5 and 11-15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over3
Shopbell in view of Graw.
Reference is made to the brief (Paper No. 13) and the final rejection and answer (Paper
Nos. 11 and 14) for the respective positions of the appellant and the examiner with regard to
the merits of these rejections.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to the
appellant's specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the respective
positions articulated by the appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of our review, we
make the determinations which follow.
The indefiniteness rejection
The examiner's first basis for rejecting the claims as indefinite is that, in claims 1 and
11,
the expression "elastomeric material" is seen to be redundant as well as a double
inclusion, since a prior description (elastic body) of the body clearly [denotes]
the body as being elastomeric. It is not clear as to what is intended to be added
by the expression "elastomeric material" [answer, page 4].
3The examiner's reference to section 102 as the basis for this rejection on page 3 of the answer is
presumed to have been an error. The rejection stated in the final rejection (Paper No. 11, page 2) was under 35
U.S.C. § 103.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007