Appeal No. 2002-2206 Page 2
Application No. 09/054,211
to remove pests and their eggs from hair and fur and a device for removal of pests and
eggs from the comb. A copy of the claims under appeal is set forth in the appendix to
the appellant's brief.
The examiner relied upon the following prior art references of record in rejecting
the appealed claims:
Franklin 2,610,638 Sep. 16, 1952
Morrison 5,600,865 Feb. 11, 1997
Guinard (French patent document) 827,463 Apr. 27, 1938
Peyron (French patent document) 945,585 Nov. 29, 1948
The following rejections are before us for review.
Claim 26 stands 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
appellant regards as the invention.1
Claim 13 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by
Franklin.
Claims 14, 22, 23 and 26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Guinard in view of Morrison.
Claims 19, 20, 24 and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Peyron in view of Franklin.
1 The examiner has not expressly repeated this rejection in the answer in light of appellant’s
concession on page 1 of the brief that claim 26 requires correction. As it is apparent from appellant’s
comments on pages 3-4 of the brief that appellant wishes to continue to pursue claim 26 in this application
and that the examiner has not withdrawn this rejection, we shall consider this rejection to be included as
part of this appeal.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007