Appeal No. 2002-1181 2
Application 09/576,154
BACKGROUND
The appellants’ invention relates to a bubble-blowing apparatus. An
understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of exemplary claim 1,
which appears in the appendix to the Brief.
The prior art references of record relied upon by the examiner in rejecting the
appealed claims are:
McNett et al. (McNett) 4,995,844 Feb. 26, 1991
Novak 5,304,085 Apr. 19, 1994
Claims 1-21 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 appellants regard as the invention.
Claims 12 and 15-21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Novak in view of McNett.
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 No. 10) and the final rejection (Paper No. 7) for the examiner's complete
reasoning in support of the rejections, and to the Brief (Paper No. 9) for the appellants’
arguments thereagainst.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007