Appeal No. 2000-1794
Application 08/901,171
Claims 1 through 11 and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, second paragraph, as failing to particularly point out
and distinctly claim the subject matter the appellant regards
as the invention.
Claims 1 through 9 and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hersheys.com.
Claims 10 and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Hersheys.com in view of Lenkoff.
Claim 12 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Hill.
Attention is directed to the appellant’s main and reply
briefs (Paper Nos. 18 and 20) and to the examiner’s final
rejection and answer (Paper Nos. 14 and 19) for the respective
positions of the appellant and the examiner with regard to the
merits of these rejections.
DISCUSSION
I. The examiner’s refusal to enter the amendment filed
subsequent to final rejection
On March 28, 2000, the appellant filed an amendment (Paper
No. 15) subsequent to final rejection which has been refused
entry by the examiner (see the advisory action dated April 5,
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007