Appeal No. 1999-0738
Application No. 08/474,195
Appellant’s invention “relates to an elongate hollow
element arranged to be progressively flattened and wound into
a compressed condition about one or more axes extending
transversely relative to the longitudinal extent of the
element” (specification, page 1). A further understanding of
the invention can be derived from a reading of exemplary claim
1, a copy of which appears in the appendix to appellant’s main
brief.
The references of record relied upon by the examiner as
evidence of anticipation are:
Myer 3,357,457 Dec. 12, 1967
Groskopfs 3,434,674 Mar. 25, 1969
Claims 1-4, 15 and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §1
112, first paragraph, as being based on a disclosure that
“fail[s] to provide an adequate written description of the
invention” (answer, page 4).
Claims 1-4 and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
as being anticipated by Myer.
1Claim 15 is a multiple dependent claim that depends from
claim 1, claim 5 or claim 9. Accordingly, the examiner’s
various rejections of “claim 15” is understood to only be
directed to claim 15/1, that is, claim 15 as it depends from
claim 1.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007