Ex Parte HRISINKO - Page 2




              Appeal No. 2003-0231                                                                 Page 2                
              Application No. 09/749,372                                                                                 


                                                    BACKGROUND                                                           
                     The appellant's invention relates to a microscope slide carrier assembly having a                   
              record pocket integral with a microscope slide carrier (specification, p. 1).  A copy of the               
              claims under appeal is set forth in the appendix to the appellant's brief.                                 


                     The prior art relied upon by the examiner in rejecting the appealed claims is:                      
              Young et al. (Young)                      4,919,268                    Apr. 24, 1990                       
              Yuen                                      4,936,462                    June 26, 1990                       
              Official Notice that it was known in the art to provide a container having a stacking                      
              means such as protrusions and recesses to facilitate stacking.                                             


                     Claims 4 and 7 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 appellant regards as the invention.1                                                             


                     Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 13 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being                    
              anticipated by Yuen.                                                                                       





                     1 Since claim 6 depends from claim 4 it appears that this ground of rejection should have also      
              been applied to claim 6.                                                                                   






Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007