Appeal No. 97-1840 Page 3
Application No. 08/316,685
BACKGROUND
The appellant's invention relates to a concentric ring
rotor. An understanding of the invention can be derived from
a reading of exemplary claim 1, which appears in the appendix
to the appellant's brief.
The prior art references of record relied upon by the
examiner in rejecting the appealed claims are:
Pichl et al. (Pichl) 4,241,620 Dec. 30,
1980
Withers 4,962,677 Oct. 16,
1990
Andrä 5,024,120 June 18,
1991
Claims 1 through 20 stand 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 appellant regards as the invention.
Claims 1 through 4, 9 through 11, 13 through 16 and 19
stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated
by Andrä.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007