Appeal No. 2006-2248
Application No. 10/158,618
20. Claims 1-10 were rejected on various grounds.
21. Claims 1-10 were rejected under the second paragraph of
35 U.S.C. § 112 as being indefinite.
22. Claims 1-7 and 9 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being
anticipated by Felty, U.S. Patent 3,906,108.
23. Claims 1-8 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being
anticipated by Granger et al. (Granger), U.S. Patent 5,693,330.
24. Claim 10 was rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Granger.
25. Felty and Granger are prior art vis-à-vis Applicants under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) and 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) respectively.
26. The Examiner found that Felty’s “example 1” described the
invention of claims 1-7 and 9.
27. The Examiner found that Granger’s “example 4” described the
invention of claims 1-8.
28. The Examiner further found (First action at page 4):
- 9 -
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007