Appeal No. 1999-0758
Application 08/784,180
Claim 1 requires that, in an identification bracelet, there be an information storing
area on an elongated strip. The claim goes on to make it apparent that the information
storing area is “for the receipt of information”. Thus, the information storing area of the
bracelet is intended to receive and, accordingly, be capable of receiving information.
Claim 2, dependent from claim 1, further restricts the information storing area to one
intended to receive and be capable of receiving machine readable information. The
antecedent basis for the language of claim 2 is the recitation of “information” set forth in
claim 1. The circumstance that the antecedent basis in claim 1 appears in an intended
use “for” clause does not prevent the language of claim 2 from having an appropriate
antecedent basis, as indicated. Thus, we conclude that the language of claim 2 is not
indefinite and the rejection thereof under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, is not
sound.
The anticipation rejection
We sustain the rejection of claims 1 and 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Solon.
Like the examiner (answer, page 3), we find that the claimed identification
bracelet with “exposed pressure sensitive adhesive fastening means” (claim 1) on one
of the extremities of an elongated flexible strip is anticipated by the identification
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007