Appeal No. 2000-2115
Application No. 08/633,564
§ 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to
particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter
which appellant regards as the invention.
In addition to the foregoing rejections under § 112, the
appealed claims also stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
follows:
a) Claims 1 and 2 as being unpatentable over Shea in view
of either Ito or Kawakatsu, and
b) Claims 1 and 2 as being unpatentable over Shea in view
of appellant's admitted prior art (APA) (specification, page
7, lines 9-24) or Kriegler.
Rather than reiterate the examiner's full statement of
the above-noted rejections and the conflicting viewpoints
advanced by the examiner and appellant regarding those
rejections, we make reference to the examiner's answer (Paper
No. 22, mailed June 14, 2000) for the examiner's complete
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007