Ex Parte WUJCIGA - Page 2




            Appeal No. 2002-0296                                                          Page 2              
            Application No. 09/248,553                                                                        


                                               BACKGROUND                                                     
                   The appellant's invention relates to a decorative, durable, light reflective vehicle       
            license plate cover (specification, p. 1).  A copy of the claims under appeal is set forth 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:                                                                              
            Leopold et al. (Leopold)         1,664,302                 Mar. 27, 1928                          
            DeLaquil, Jr. (DeLaquil)         4,891,895                 Jan.   9, 1990                         
            Lucier                           5,623,776                 Apr. 29, 1997                          
            Sersiron                  FR 2 543 499                     Oct.   5, 1984                         



                   Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as containing              
            subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable            
            one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to        
            make and/or use the invention.                                                                    


                   Claims 1 and 3 to 6 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.                                                     








Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007