Appeal No. 95-1215
Application No. 07/750,777
(2) Claims 12, 14, 17, 19 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to
particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter
which applicant regards as his invention; and
(3) Claims 11 through 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Oneto in view of Schafer and Dawson.
We have carefully reviewed the entire record before us,
including all of the arguments and comments advanced by the
examiner and appellant in support of their respective
positions.
This review leads us to conclude that only the examiner’s §
112 rejection of claims 19 and 20 is well-founded.
Accordingly, we will sustain only the § 112 rejection of
claims 19 and 20, but will reverse the remaining rejections
based on § 101, § 112 and
§ 103. Our reasons for this determination follow.
The examiner has rejected claim 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 101
as being “directed to an intended use.” See Answer, page 3.
The examiner appears to view the subject matter of claim 21
as nonstatutory in terms of 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the so-
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007