Appeal No. 2004-1058
Application 09/584,053
cat is part of the claimed invention to the extent that it
expressly includes within the scope of the claims the practice of
the specified method on these particular furry pets.1 Thus, the
examiner’s position that the language in question renders the
appealed claims indefinite is not well taken.
Accordingly, we shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, second paragraph, rejection of claims 12 through 18, 20
and 22 through 29.
III. The 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of claims 12 through 18, 20
and 22 through 29 as being anticipated by Deneen2
Deneen discloses a combined safety razor and hair cutter for
shaving or trimming hair or a beard. The device includes a frame
(see Figure 6), a comb 5 (see Figure 5), a razor blade 6 (see
Figure 7), and a handle 10 (see Figure 8), with these elements
1 The examiner has not questioned the meaning of the “furry
pet” language.
2 A cursory review of the Deneen patent shows that its
specification is incomplete, apparently due to a publishing
error. For purposes of this appeal, we have considered this
reference for what it discloses in its drawing figures and on the
two pages of specification which are present.
-7-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007