Ex parte BRIGHT - Page 4




          Appeal No. 1998-0483                                                        
          Application No. 08/543,840                                                  




                                                                                     
                                                                                     
                                                                                     
                                                                                     
                                                                                     
                                                                                     
                                    THE PRIOR ART                                     
               The prior art references of record relied upon by the                  
          examiner in rejecting the appealed claims are:                              
          Herdzina et al. (Herdzina)    4,216,044                Aug. 5,              
          1980                                                                        
          Dickey                        4,923,557                May 8,               
          1990                                                                        

                                   THE REJECTIONS                                     
               Claims 1 through 6 and 12 through 18 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 the invention.                    
               Claims 1 through 13 and 15 through 18 stand rejected                   
          under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Dickey in                  
          view of Herdzina.                                                           
               Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced              
          by the examiner and the appellant regarding the above-noted                 

                                          4                                           






Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007