Appeal No. 1997-4463
Application 07/988,712
Bullock et al. (Bullock) 5,351,186 September
27, 1994
(filed January 16,
1991)
Claims 3 and 4 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to
particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter
which applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Revesz and Humble.
Claims 1-18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Bullock and Pfeiffer. This is a new ground
of rejection entered in the Examiner's Answer.
We refer to the Office action (Paper No. 14), the Final
Rejection (Paper No. 17) (pages referred to as "FR__"), the
Examiner's Answer (Paper No. 23) (pages referred to as
"EA__"), and the Supplemental Examiner's Answer (Paper No. 25)
(pages referred to as "SEA__") for a statement of the
Examiner's rejection and to the Appeal Brief (Paper No. 22)
(pages referred to as "Br__") and the Response (Paper No. 24)
(pages referred to as "RBr__") for a statement of Appellant's
arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
- 4 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007