Appeal No. 2002-0747 Page 2
Application No. 09/006,982
BACKGROUND
The appellants’ invention relates to an apparatus for delivering air-borne
substances . An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of
exemplary claim 1, which has been reproduced below.
The prior art references of record relied upon by the examiner in rejecting the
appealed claims are:
Watt 4,554,916 Nov. 26, 1985
Spengler 4,781,146 Nov. 1, 1988
The following are the standing rejections:
(1) Claims 1-181 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 on the basis that the invention is inoperative
and therefore lacks utility.
(2) Claims 1-18 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, on the basis that the
specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with
which it is most nearly connected, to make or use the invention commensurate in
scope with these claims.
(3) Claims 1-27 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.
(4) Claims 1-27 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as being incomplete for
omitting essential elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the
elements.
(5) Claims 1, 2 and 8-18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Watt.
1 The claims to which this rejection applies were not recited in the statement of the rejection. It
would appear, however, that it applies to claims 1-18, inasmuch as these are the only claims that contain
subject matter with which the examiner takes issue.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007