Appeal No. 2003-1760
Application No. 29/159,145
BACKGROUND
The examiner relies on the following reference:
Henderson 3,512,777 May 19, 1970
The claim stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as the claimed
invention is not described in such full, clear, concise and exact terms as to enable any
person skilled in the art to make and use the same.
The claim stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Henderson, Figure 23.
We refer to the Rejection (Paper No. 4),1 the Final Rejection (Paper No. 9) and
the Examiner’s Answer (Paper No. 12) for a statement of the examiner’s position and to
the Brief (Paper No. 11) and the Reply Brief (Paper No. 13) for appellant’s position with
respect to the claim which stand rejected.
OPINION
The examiner has rejected the claim under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph. The
examiner contends that the claim is non-enabling since the detail within surface portions
of the design outside the enlarged area in Figs. 4-5 is “left to conjecture from the
present sketchy and incomplete hatching shown in Figs. 1-3.” (Rejection at 2.) Further,
1 The Examiner’s Answer refers to both the Final Rejection and to Paper No. 4, the first Office
action on the merits. Cf. MPEP § 1208, “ANSWER,” 8th ed., Rev. 1, Feb. 2003 (“Only those statements of
grounds of rejection appearing in a single prior action may be incorporated by reference. An examiner's
answer should not refer, either directly or indirectly, to more than one prior Office action.”).
-2-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007