Appeal No. 96-2094
Application 08/282,783
The following rejections are before us for review:
(a) claims 2, 3, 5 and 7-14, under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph, as being based on a specification that “fail[s] to
provide an adequate written description of the invention . . .
and . . . does not provide support for the invention as is now
claimed” (final rejection, page 4);
(b) claims 2, 3, 5-14, under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, “as being indefinite” (final rejection, page 6) and
“as prolix since they contain long recitations or unimportant
details which hide or obscure the invention” (final rejection,
page 7);
(c) claims 2, 3 and 6-14, under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), as
being anticipated by Leleu;
(d) claims 2, 3 and 5-14, under 35 U.S.C. § 103, as being
unpatentable over Leleu; and
(e) claims 2, 3, 5 and 7-14, under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as4
being unpatentable over Leleu in view of Bourret.
4In that claim 6 was rejected as being unpatentable over
Leleu alone in rejection (d), it is not clear why it was not
included in this rejection.
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007