Appeal No. 1997-0189
Application No. 07/983,118
Yang 4,978,202 Dec. 18,
1990
Claims 34-43, 50, and 51 stand finally rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, for failing to particularly
point out and distinctly claim the invention. Claims 34, 39,
and 51 stand finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Suntola in view of Mourey. Claims 35, 36,
40, and 41 stand finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Suntola in view of Mourey and Yang.
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and the
Examiner, reference is made to the Brief and Answer for the
respective details thereof.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the subject matter on
appeal, the rejections advanced by the Examiner, the arguments
in support of the rejections, and the evidence of obviousness
relied upon by the Examiner as support for the obviousness
rejection. We have, likewise, reviewed and taken into
consideration, in reaching our decision, Appellant's arguments
set forth in the Brief along with the Examiner’s rationale in
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007