Appeal 2006-2714
Application 10/228,898
The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence of
unpatentability:
Sims US 3,713,744 Jan. 30, 1973
Hurst US 5,056,265 Oct. 15, 1991
Matechuk US 5,605,500 Feb. 25, 1997
Evensen US 5,921,854 Jul. 13, 1999
Carter US 6,106,370 Aug. 22, 2000
Takizawa US 6,186,878 B1 Feb. 13, 2001
Loveless US 6,347,985 B1 Feb. 19, 2002
Nelson US 6,524,173 B1 Feb. 25, 2003
Deware US 6,648,737 B2 Nov. 18, 2003
Appellant seeks review of the Examiner’s rejection of claim 7 under
35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as indefinite for failing to particularly
point out and distinctly claim the subject matter Appellant regards as the
invention;1 rejection of claims 5-9 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated
by Sims, with Deware, Nelson, Carter, Evensen, and Hurst cited as evidence
that Sims’ steel wool pad is a “sanding pad” as recited in Appellant’s claim
5; and rejection of claims 5-9 as unpatentable over Matechuk in view of any
of Loveless, Takizawa, and Sims.
The Examiner provides reasoning in support of the rejections in the
Final Rejection (mailed July 13, 2005) and Answer (mailed March 22,
2006). Appellant presents opposing arguments in the Brief (filed December
22, 2005) and Reply Brief (filed May 24, 2006).
1 Although the Examiner does not restate the indefiniteness rejection in the
Answer, the Examiner’s agreement (Answer 2) with Appellant’s statement
of the grounds of rejection to be reviewed (Br. 3) indicates the Examiner’s
intent to maintain the rejection.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013