Appeal 2007-0368
Application 10/178,127
THE REFERENCES
La Pierre US 5,121,997 Jun. 16, 1992
Van Erden EP 0 547 966 A1 Jun. 23, 1993
Tilman US 6,467,956 B1 Oct. 22, 2002
(filed Nov. 3, 2000)
THE REJECTIONS
The claims stand rejected as follows: claims 1, 2, 6, 12, 13, and 17-20 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Van Erden; claims 3-5, 7-10, and 14-16 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Van Erden in view of Tilman; and claim 11 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Van Erden in view of La Pierre.
OPINION
We affirm the aforementioned rejections and enter a new rejection of claims
1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.
New rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph
Under 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) we enter the following new ground of rejection.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as being
indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter
the Appellants regard as the invention.
The Appellants’ independent claims are claims 1 and 12. Claim 1 recites:
“said loop being between said profile members and a top of said reclosable
container and offset from an interior of said top of said reclosable container”.
Claim 12 recites: “said loop intended to be between said profile members and an
interior of a top of a reclosable container and offset from said top of said reclosable
container.” Those claim limitations were added by amendment (filed March 24,
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013