Appeal No. 96-0978
Application 08/110,324
The references relied on by the examiner are:
Lavanchy et al. (Lavanchy) 3,368,747 Feb. 13, 1968
Kulker 3,723,864 Jan. 26, 1989
(Germany Application)3
Claim 2 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point
out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the appellants
regard as the invention.
Claim 1 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
clearly anticipated by Lavanchy.
Claim 2 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Lavanchy in view of Kulker.
The examiner’s rejections are explained on pages 3-5 of the
answer. Rather than reiterate the arguments of the appellants
and the examiner in support of their respective positions,
reference is made to pages 4-10 of the substitute brief and pages
5-9 of the answer for the details thereof.
OPINION
We have carefully reviewed the appellants’ invention as
described in the specification, the appealed claims, the prior
3Translation attached.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007