Appeal No. 95-1217
Application 08/039,674
The Examiner relied on the following references:
Corwin et al. 5,233,541 8/93
Fukumizu 5,060,278 10/91
Crimmins et al. 4,644,585 2/87
Prakash 5,054,101 10/91
Huynh et al. 4,878,114 10/89
Eckstein, Jr. 3,947,833 3/76
Natakani 4,817,174 3/89
Hunt et al. 4,335,427 6/82
Claims 1 through 13 and claims 15 through 20 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 1, as based on a non-
enabling disclosure. Claims 3, 7 through 11, and 17 through
18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 2, as indefinite
due to failure to point out and distinctly claim the
invention.
The claims were also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Claims 1, 5, 12, 13, and 15 stand rejected under § 103 as
unpatentable over Corwin et al. in view of Fukumizu. Claims
2, 7, 8, 11, 14, and 18 stand rejected under § 103 as
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007