Appeal No. 1999-1081 Page 2
Application No. 08/458,983
BACKGROUND
The appellants’ invention relates to a building block. An understanding of the
invention can be derived from a reading of exemplary claim 1, which appears in the
appendix to the appellants’ Brief.
The prior art references of record relied upon by the examiner in rejecting the
appealed claims are:
Dunker 4,624,089 Nov. 25, 1986
Marks 4,974,381 Dec. 4, 1990
Claim 17 stands 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 the
appellants regard as the invention.
Claims 1-9, 11-14 and 66-71 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by either of Marks or Dunker.
Claims 15 and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over either of Marks or Dunker.
Claim 71 also stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Marks.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and the
appellants regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the Answer (Paper
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007