Appeal No. 2004-0061
Application 09/745,762
Claims 23 through 35 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph as being indefinite for failing to particularly
point out and distinctly claim that which appellant regards as
the invention. In the examiner’s view, the claims on appeal are
indefinite because it is unclear in independent claims 23 and 29
how the second interior compartment can be retained within the
first large interior compartment “while the second compartment be
sharing a portion of the interior surface of the large
compartment and divided by a dividing wall” (answer, page 4).
Claims 23 through 35 also stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Shreim.
Rather than reiterate the examiner's full commentary
regarding the above-noted rejections and the conflicting
viewpoints advanced by the examiner and appellant regarding the
rejections, we make reference to the examiner's answer (Paper No.
8, mailed January 13, 2003) for the examiner's reasoning in
support of the rejections, and to appellant’s brief (Paper No. 7,
filed October 24, 2002) and reply brief (Paper No. 9, filed March
12, 2003) for the arguments thereagainst.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007