Appeal 2007-0486
Application 10/441,484
either of these references would appear to be a matter of selecting a
workable or optimum location for the seam associated with the appropriate
folds of these references, which folds were found by the Examiner to
correspond with Appellant’s’ claimed ridges.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 11 and 12 under 35 U.S.C. §
102(b) as being anticipated by Eng and to reject claims 11 and 12 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Hoffman is affirmed. The
Examiner’s decision to reject claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Eng; to reject claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Hoffman; to reject claims 11, 12 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. §
102(b) as being anticipated by Ruddy; and to reject claim 14 under 35
U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph as being indefinite for failing to particularly
point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which Applicants regards
as the invention is reversed.
In addition to affirming the Examiner's rejection of one or more claims,
this decision contains a remand. 37 CFR § 41.50(e) (effective September 13,
2004, 69 Fed. Reg. 49960 (August 12, 2004), 1286 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 21
(September 7, 2004)) provides that
[w]henever a decision of the Board includes a remand, that
decision shall not be considered final for judicial review. When
appropriate, upon conclusion of proceedings on remand before the
examiner, the Board may enter an order otherwise making its decision
final for judicial review.
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013