Appeal No. 1999-0194
Application No. 08/436,626
The following rejections are before us for review:2
(1) claims 20-27, rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, as being indefinite;
(2) claims 1-5, 8-14, 16-22 and 25-27, rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b), as being in public use and/or on sale in this
country more than one year prior to the filing date of the
present application, as evidenced by the activity involved in
the construction and use of the Conewago Creek bridge;
(3) claims 1-14 and 16-27, rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b), as being in public use and/or on sale in this
country more than one year prior to the filing date of the
present application, as evidenced by the activity involved in
the construction and use of the Schuylkill bridge;
(4) claim 15, rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), as being
2The examiner appears to have inadvertently failed to
include the 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, rejection of
claims 20-27 made in the final rejection in the statement of
the rejections in the answer. However, it is clear from the
record as a whole (see, for example, pages 5-7 of the answer
and pages 5-7 of the brief) that both the examiner and
appellant regard this rejection as being maintained on appeal.
Accordingly, the examiner’s inadvertent failure to list this
rejection in the answer is considered to be harmless.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007