Appeal 2007-0870
Reissue Application 09/902,904
Patent 6,038,784
The following prior art2 was relied upon by the Examiner:
Slipp GB 160,098 17 Mar. 1921
Son US 2,472,028 31 May 1949
Fox US 2,979,900 18 Apr. 1961
Folini CH 685,919 A5 15 Nov. 1995
Chang US 5,492,237 20 Feb. 1996
Slipp, Son, Fox, Folini, and Chang qualify as prior art under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b).
In deciding this appeal, we have considered only the following: (a) the
Reissue Specification, including original claims, (b) the Non-Final Rejection
entered 22 November 2005, (c) the Interview Summary mailed 16 May
2006, (d) the Appeal Brief ("Br.") filed 23 May 2006, (e) the Examiner's
Answer ("Answer") mailed 29 June 2006, (f) the PTO bibliographic data
sheet for the Reissue Application on appeal, (g) US Patent 6,038,784, which
is the patent sought to be reissued, (h) Slipp, (i) Son, (j) Fox, (k) Folini, (l)
Chang, and (m) claims 2, 4-7, and 9-34 on appeal.
The rejections under review in this appeal are as follows:3
(1) Claim 2 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, as indefinite in reciting "such as."
(2) Claims 2, 4-7, 9, 22-26, and 29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as anticipated by Slipp.
2 The reader should know that no references to et al. are made in this
opinion.
3 The Examiner has withdrawn the following rejections, i.e., the rejection of
(i) claims 4-7, 15-17, 22, 24-26, and 29 under § 112, first paragraph (lack of
written description), (ii) claims 4-7, 15-17, 22, 24-26, and 29 under § 112,
second paragraph (indefiniteness), and (iii) claim 21 under § 102(b) as
anticipated by Son (Answer, 12).
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013