Appeal No. 2002-1123
Application No. 09/110,987
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Garr in view of Stoller. (Id. at
pages 3-4.)
We affirm both rejections.1
35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶2: Claims 3 and 8
The examiner held that appealed claims 3 and 8 are
indefinite because “[i]t is unclear how defining the workpiece
(flexible film) defines the claimed invention of a rolled
material dispenser assembly.” (Answer, page 3; final Office
action, page 2.)
The appellant has not responded to the examiner’s
rejection. Accordingly, we affirm this uncontested rejection.
35 U.S.C. § 103(a): Claims 1-3, 5, 6, and 8
It is well settled that, in proceedings before the United
States Patent and Trademark Office (PTO), claims in an
application must be given their broadest reasonable
interpretation, taking into account the written description
found in the specification. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054,
44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Zletz, 893 F.2d
1 The appellant submits: “For purposes of this appeal
brief, claims 2, 3, 5, 6 and 8 stand or fall with claim 1.”
(Second appeal brief filed Aug. 29, 2001, paper 17, p. 3.)
Accordingly, we confine our discussion of the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
rejection to claim 1. 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7)(2001); In re
McDaniel, 293 F.3d 1379, 1383, 63 USPQ2d 1462, 1465 (Fed. Cir.
2002).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007