Appeal No. 2004-1302
Application No. 09/789,757
the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112. However, given that we
have determined that Gelardi does not anticipation claim 1 from
which claim 20 depends, we shall not sustain the rejection of
claim 20 as being anticipated by Gelardi, it being noted that
this is a reversal on the merits and not merely a procedural
reversal.
The rejection of claims 26, 29, 34-37, 39 and 44-46 as being
anticipated by Gelardi is not sustained because, for the reasons
explained infra in our new ground of rejection, the meaning of
the requirement of claim 26 that the rosette has a thickness less
than a thickness of the tray is not clear. This reversal is not
based upon any evaluation of the merits thereof and does not
preclude the examiner’s advancement of a rejection predicated
upon that art against a definite claim.
Rejection (4)
Claims 16, 19, 40 and 43 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Cheung or Gelardi.
Considering first claims 16 and 19, claim 16 depends
indirectly from claim 1 and calls for the boss to be clear
crystal styrene material integrally molded with the tray. Claim
14
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007