Ex Parte Stevens - Page 2



          Appeal No. 2006-0028                                                                         
          Application No. 10/435,858                                                                   

                                    THE INVENTION                                                      
               The invention relates to “a method for enhancing the                                    
          efficiency of freighting dangerous goods” (specification, page 1).                           
          The claim reads as follows:                                                                  
               A method of enhancing the efficiency of freight movement of                             
          dangerous goods, the method comprising utilizing wing-in-ground                              
          craft, types A or B, equipped to haul dangerous goods.                                       
                                    THE REJECTIONS                                                     
               The claim stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first                                  
          paragraph, as being based on a specification which is non-enabling                           
          with respect to the claimed invention.                                                       
               The claim also stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as                              
          being anticipated by “TAF VIII-2 Jörg IV from Botec,” The WIG Page                           
          Datasheet no. 57 (The WIG Page © 1996-2003)(Jörg).1                                          
               Attention is directed to the brief (filed April 27, 2005) and                           
          answer (mailed June 14, 2005) for the respective positions of the                            
          appellant and examiner regarding the merits of these rejections.                             


                                                                                                      
               1  The appellant has not challenged the examiner’s implicit determination that the Jörg reference
          is prior art with respect to the claimed invention under § 102(b).                           

                                          2                                                            











Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007