Appeal No. 96-1747
Application 08/299,839
paragraph, as being indefinite in that it fails to
particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter
which the appellant regards as the invention.
(2) Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Vario.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced
by the examiner and the appellant regarding the above-noted
rejections, we make reference to the examiner's answer (Paper
No.
10) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the
rejections, and to the appellant's brief (Paper No. 9) for the
appellant's arguments thereagainst. 2
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to the appellant's specification and
claim, to the applied prior art reference, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the
2An amendment (Paper No. 11) and an attached affidavit filed on
December 7, 1996, were denied entry (Paper Nos. 12 and 14) and, accordingly,
have not been considered in our determination of the issues in this appeal.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007