Appeal No. 1997-3103
Application 08/449,647
THE REJECTIONS
The claims stand rejected as follows: claims 5, 7, 9, 11-
14 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as being
indefinite for failing to particularly point out and
distinctly
claim the subject matter which appellant regards as the
invention; claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, fourth paragraph,
as being improper dependent form for failing to further limit
the subject matter of a previous claim; claims 3, 5, 7, 9, 12
and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by
Pigneul; and claims 3, 5, 7, 9, 11-13 and 18 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being obvious over Raley in view of Pigneul. 1
OPINION
We affirm the rejections of claims 3, 5, 7, 9 and 12
1In the answer (pages 2 and 5) the examiner withdraws a
rejection of claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph,
withdraws all rejections under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 based
on U.S. 5,281,207 to Chmielewski, and withdraws the rejection
of claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Raley in view of
Pigneul.
-3-3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007