Appeal No. 2004-0136 Page 2
Application No. 09/761,340
BACKGROUND
The appellant's invention relates to a boot. An understanding of the invention
can be derived from a reading of exemplary claim 57, which has been reproduced
below.
The prior art references of record relied upon by the examiner in rejecting the
appealed claims are:
Spademan 4,360,979 Nov. 30, 1982
Ottieri 4,969,278 Nov. 13, 1990
Battistella et al. (Battistella) 5,060,403 Oct. 29, 1991
Claims 68 and 99-102 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 appellants regard as the invention.
The following rejections stand under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b):
(1) Claims 57, 58, 60, 61, 65, 68, 69, 72, 97, 98 and 102 on the basis of Battistella.
(2) Claims 57, 58, 59, 65, 68 and 69 on the basis of Spademan.
(3) Claims 99-101 on the basis of Ottieri.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellants regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the Answer
(Paper No. 20) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the rejections, and
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007