Appeal No. 97-4184
Application No. 08/521,256
the examiner's rejections. In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 862,
134 USPQ 292, 295 (CCPA 1962). We hasten to point out,
however, that this action should not be construed as an
indication that the claimed subject matter would not have been
obvious in view of the prior art cited against the claims. We
have not addressed this issue, for to do so would require on
our part the very speculation which formed the basis of our
rejection under Section 112.
SUMMARY
The rejection of claims 1-5, 21 and 23 under 35 U.S.C. §
103 as being unpatentable over Gomez-Acevedo in view of
Murasaki is not sustained.
The rejection of claim 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Gomez-Acevedo in view of Murasaki and either
Aeschbach or Noel is not sustained.
Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 1.196(b), claims 1-5 and 21-23
are 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.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007