Appeal 2007-0924
Application 10/401,079
wherein one of the storing objects means
and the enclosing means defines an internal space
in which the expandable structure can be
manipulated from a retracted state that confines the
expandable structure within the one of the storing
object means and the enclosing means and an
expanded state external to the one of the storing
object means and the enclosing means.
THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence of
unpatentability:
Yannuzzi US 3,402,808 Sep. 24, 1968
Wolfe US 4,679,822 Jul. 14, 1987
The following rejections are before us for review.2,3
Claims 2, 5 and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, as being indefinite.
Claims 16-18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated
by Wolfe.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 8 and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Wolfe in view of Yannuzzi.
2 The rejection of claims 2, 5 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph,
set forth on pages 2 and 3 of the Final Rejection (mailed April 28, 2005) has
been "removed for purpose of appeal" (Ans. 2).
3 Appellant requests that we review the propriety of the withdrawal of claims
3, 6, 7, 11 and 14 (App. Br. 8-11) and the objection to the drawings under 37
C.F.R. § 1.83(a) (App. Br. 13-14). These issues relate to petitionable
matters and not to appealable matters. See Manual of Patent Examining
Procedure (MPEP) §§ 1002 and 1201 and are not within the jurisdiction of
the Board. See In re Mindick, 371 F.2d 892, 894, 152 USPQ 566, 568
(CCPA 1967).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013