Appeal No. 1999-0547 Page 2
Application No. 08/615,790
BACKGROUND
The appellant's invention relates to a blender apparatus. An understanding of the
invention can be derived from a reading of exemplary claim 1, which appears in the
appendix to Paper No. 28.
The sole prior art reference of record relied upon by the examiner in rejecting the
appealed claims is:
McLeod et al. (McLeod) 3,645,505 Feb. 29, 1972
Claims 1-4, 6, 7, 9-15 and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by McLeod.1
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and the
appellant regarding the above-noted rejection, we make reference to the Answer (Paper
1Inconsistencies appearing in the record with regard to which claims are on appeal
are worthy of mention. In Paper No. 21, the examiner finally rejected claims 1-17, which
were all of the claims remaining of record. The appellant appealed from the rejection of
claims 1-17 (Paper No. 21 ½), but failed to list the status of the claims in the appeal brief
(Paper No. 23), although all 17 claims were reproduced in the appendix. The examiner
required a new brief for this and other reasons (Paper No. 24), to which the appellant filed
a new brief (Paper No. 25) listing only claims 1-4, 6, 7, 9-15 and 17 in the status section as
being appealed, and reproducing only these claims in the appendix. The examiner treated
only claims 1-4, 6, 7, 9-15 and 17 in the answer (Paper No. 26), and again raised issues of
non-compliance regarding the brief (page 10). The appellant filed yet another brief (Paper
No. 28), in which claims 1-17 were listed in the status section as being under appeal, but
only claims 1-4, 6, 7, 9-15 and 17 were reproduced in the appendix. It was confirmed at
the oral hearing that the appellant intended to carry on the appeal only of claims 1-4, 6, 7,
9-15 and 17, and we therefore consider the appeal of claims 5, 8 and 16 as having been
withdrawn.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007