Appeall No. 1998-1398 Page 5
Application No. 08/400,637
Gillig et al. (Gillig ‘560) 6,141,560 Oct.
31, 2000 (effectively filed Sep. 23,
1988).
We will call these references collectively the “Gillig
references” or the “references.”
Claims 27-36 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 1,
as lacking a written description. Claims 27-30 stand rejected
under § 112, ¶ 1, as non-enabled, and under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as
lacking utility. Claims 31-36 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as anticipated by Gillig ‘230 and under 35 U.S.C. §
102(e) as anticipated by Gillig ‘042, Gillig ‘558, Gillig
‘674, or Gillig
'560. Claims 27-29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)1
as obvious over Gillig ‘230, Gillig ‘042, Gillig ‘558, or
Gillig ‘674. Rather than repeat the arguments of the
appellants or examiner in toto, we refer the reader to the
1Although the examiner provisionally rejected claims 31-
36 over Application Serial No. 08/654,502, (Examiner's Answer
at 14), the issuance of the Application as the Gillig ‘560
converted the provisional rejection into a non-provisional
rejection. See M.P.E.P. § 804.I.B (7th ed., July 1998).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007