Appeal No. 2002-0266 Page 2
Application No. 09/409,672
BACKGROUND
The appellant's invention relates to an article for dispensing liquid materials. An
understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of exemplary claim 25,
which appears in the appendix to the appellant's Brief.
The prior art of record relied upon by the examiner in rejecting the appealed
claims are:
Koreska et al. (Koreska) 4,784,506 Nov. 15, 1988
European Patent Application 0 170 526 Feb. 5, 1986
(EP)
Japanese Unexamined Utility H2-135479 Nov. 9, 1990
Model Application (JP)1
PCT Published Patent Application WO 91/09641 Jul. 11, 1991
(WO)
Applicant’s admission at page 4 of AMENDMENT AND RESPONSE TO ELECTION OF
SPECIES REQUIREMENT (Paper No. 6, filed May 10, 2000).2
Claims 32, 33 and 44 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 applicant regards as the invention
1Our understanding of this foreign language reference was obtained from a PTO translation, a
copy of which is enclosed.
2Which reads as follows: “In further response to the Election of Species Requirement, Applicant
respectfully asserts that pending claims 25-36, 38-46, 48 and 52-55 are generic to and read on the elected
species.”
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007