Appeal No. 2002-0911 Page 3
Application No. 09/272,115
The examiner relied upon the following prior art references of record in rejecting
the appealed claims:
Batson et al. (Batson) 2,784,850 Mar. 12, 1957
Newell 3,929,204 Dec. 30, 1975
Andersson 4,064,615 Dec. 27, 1977
Morrow, Sr. et al. (Morrow) 4,081,081 Mar. 28, 1978
Becker 4,660,731 Apr. 28, 1987
Walker 5,960,970 Oct. 5, 1999
(filed Oct. 15, 1997)
Carter (British patent specification) 981,129 Jan. 20, 1965
The following rejections are before us for review.1
(1) Claims 1-9 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
appellants regard as their invention.
(2) Claims 1 and 5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by
Carter.
(3) Claims 5, 6 and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated
by Walker.
(4) Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by
Batson.
1 The plethora of prior art rejections set forth in the final rejection and answer is clearly not in
compliance with the instructions set forth in § 706.02 - CHOICE OF PRIOR ART; BEST AVAILABLE
(page 700-20) of the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP). Nevertheless, in the interest of
administrative efficiency, this panel has elected to decide this appeal rather than remand the application to
the examiner to select the best prior art rejections.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007