Appeal No. 95-0537
Application No. 08/077,709
particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter
which applicants regard as the invention.
(3) Claims 1-6 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
112, first paragraph, as being based on a non-enabling
disclosure.
(4) Claims 1-3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101
as reading on inoperative species.
(5) Claims 1, 2 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(a)/103 as being unpatentable over Eom.
(6) Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over the combination of Eom and Gallagher.
(7) Claims 1, 2 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
102(e) as being anticipated by Beasley.
(8) Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over the combination of Beasley and
Gallagher.
New matter rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph, as containing new matter. According to the 2
2According to appellants, claims 1-9 which stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as containing new
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007