Appeal No. 1999-1813 Page 2
Application No. 08/801,010
BACKGROUND
The appellant's invention relates to a transition support for supporting flooring over
areas of flooring having different heights. An understanding of the invention can be derived
from a reading of exemplary claim 1, which appears in the appendix to the appellant's
Brief.
The prior art references of record relied upon by the examiner in rejecting the
appealed claims are:
Bell 2,142,832 Jan. 3, 1939
Donovan 4,557,475 Dec. 10, 1985
Claims 1, 4-6 and 8-11 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 the appellant regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 4 and 8-11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Bell.
Claims 5 and 6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Bell in view of Donovan.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and the
appellant regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the Answer (Paper
No. 13) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the rejections, and to the Brief
(Paper No. 11) and Reply Brief (Paper No. 14) for the appellant's arguments thereagainst.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007