Appeal No. 1999-2446 Page 4
Application No. 08/705,592
35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for
failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the
subject matter which the appellant regards as the invention.
Claims 6, 7, 9 to 17 and 19 to 25 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Stacy or Scott.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced
by the examiner and the appellant regarding the above-noted
rejections, we make reference to the answer (Paper No. 10,
mailed June 23, 1998) for the examiner's complete reasoning in
support of the rejections, and to the brief (Paper No. 9,
filed April 23, 1998) and reply brief (Paper No. 11, filed
August 26, 1998) for the appellant's arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to the appellant's specification and
claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007