Ex Parte Hadley - Page 2




         Appeal No. 2003-0673                                                       
         Application 09/795,307                                                     


              a plurality of recycle bins for different recyclable                  
         materials, one of said bins being mounted in each of said                  
         plurality of holding frame portions,                                       
              each of said recycle bins having sides that engage the sides          
         of the holding frame portion in which mounted which the sides of           
         the recycle bin being configured to complement the inwardly and            
         downwardly slanted side of the holding frame portion,                      
              a plurality of rollable members mounted to the frame of said          
         cart, and                                                                  
              a handle mounted to said frame and extending upwardly from            
         the frame of the cart.                                                     
                                  THE PRIOR ART                                     
              The references relied on by the examiner to support the               
         rejections on appeal are:                                                  
         O’Malley                   4,984,704              Jan. 15, 1991            
         Weck et al. (Weck)         6,224,072              May   1, 2001            
                                  THE REJECTIONS                                    
              Claim 8 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being             
         anticipated by O’Malley.                                                   
              Claims 5 through 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)            
         as being unpatentable over O’Malley in view of Weck.                       
              Attention is directed to the brief (Paper No. 9) and answer           
         (Paper No. 11) for the respective positions of the appellant and           
         examiner regarding the merits of these rejections.1                        

              1 In the final rejection (Paper No. 7), claims 5 and 8 also           
         stood rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by            
         U.S. Patent No. 4,357,029 to Marini et al.  Upon reconsideration,          
         the examiner has since withdrawn this rejection (see page 5 in             
         the answer).                                                               
                                         2                                          




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007