Appeal No. 1998-0408
Application No. 08/176,861
or services at an amusement park (claims 20-22 and 28). An
understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading
of exemplary claims 1 and 20, which appear in the appendix to
appellants' brief.
The prior art references of record relied upon by the
examiner in rejecting the appealed claims under 35 U.S.C. §
103 are:
Twentier 3,153,869 Oct. 27, 1964
Hansen, Sr. (Hansen) 4,879,162 Nov. 7, 1989
Melin et al. (Melin) 5,279,057 Jan. 18, 1994
Ohno 552,656 Jul. 28, 1993
(European patent application)
The following rejections are before us for review.
(1) Claims 1-12 and 20-281 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 appellants regard as the invention.
(2) Claims 1-4, 12, 20-22 and 28 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Melin in view of
Hansen.
1 The rejection of claims 23-28 under 35 U.S.C. § 112 was added as a new
ground of rejection in the examiner's answer.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007