Appeal 2007-1325
Application 10/065,722
1 status of all pending claims as of the date of the Examiner's Answer is
2 identified in Appendix 1.
3 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). While the rejection on
4 appeal is not a final rejection, Dart's claims have been twice rejected within
5 the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 134.
6 The application on appeal was filed on 13 November 2002 and was
7 published as Published Application 2003/0089714 A1 on 15 May 2003.
8 The four-digit paragraph numbers of the Specification as filed do not
9 coincide with the four-digit paragraph number of the application as
10 published. Since the Appeal Brief refers to the four-digit paragraph numbers
11 of the specification, as filed, we will do likewise.
12 Dart claims benefit of an earlier filing date based on (1) Provisional
13 Application 60/350,706, filed 13 November 2001, (2) Provisional
14 Application 60/350,875, filed 22 January 2002 and (3) Provisional
15 Application 60/410,380, filed 13 September 2002.
16 The real party in interest is Dart Container Corporation. Appeal
17 Brief 1.
18 The Examiner rejected claims 3, 9-11, 27-29, 36-40, 44-50, 55-59, 63,
19 68-71, 75-77, 80-83, and 88-95 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
20 unpatentable over Freek and Waterbury. (The reader should know that no
21 references to et al. are made in this opinion.)
22 The Examiner has also rejected claims 49-59 under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
23 second paragraph, as being indefinite.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013