Appeal No. 2000-0791 Page 2
Application No. 08/858,286
BACKGROUND
The appellant's invention relates to a baggage tag. An understanding of the
invention can be derived from a reading of exemplary claim 1, which appears in the
appendix to the appellant's Brief.
The prior art reference of record relied upon by the examiner in rejecting the
appealed claims is:
Breen et al. (Breen) 4,817,310 Apr. 4, 1989
Claims 4, 8, 11 and 13 stand 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 the appellant regards as the invention.
Claims 1-4 and 9-13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated
by Breen.
Claims 5-8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Breen.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and the
appellant regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the Answer (Paper
No. 14) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the rejections, and to the Brief
(Paper No. 13) and Reply Brief (Paper No. 15) for the appellant's arguments thereagainst.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007