Appeal No. 96-2608
Application 08/068,498
Claims 1, 4, 5, 8 and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to
particularly point out and distinctly claim that which
appellants regard as their invention.
Claims 1 and 2 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Stallmann.
Claim 7 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Stallmann.
Rather than reiterate the examiner's full statement of the
above-noted rejections and the conflicting viewpoints advanced
by the examiner and appellants regarding those rejections, we
make reference to the examiner's answer (Paper No. 22, mailed
November 27, 1995) for the examiner's reasoning in support of
the rejections, and to appellants' brief (Paper No. 21, filed
October 19, 1995) for appellants' arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007