Appeal No. 2001-0206
Application 08/959,964
failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the
subject matter the appellant regards as the invention.
Claims 1 through 7, 10, 12, 18, 20, 22, 24, 25, 32 and 33
stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated
by Barker.
Claims 32 and 33 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
as being anticipated by Martin.
Attention is directed to the appellant’s main and reply
briefs (Paper Nos. 17 and 20) and to the examiner’s answer
(Paper No. 19) for the respective positions of the appellant
and the examiner with regard to the merits of these
rejections.1
DISCUSSION
I. The 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, rejection
The explanation of this rejection (see pages 3, 4, 6 and
7 in the answer) indicates that the examiner considers claims
1Since the examiner (see the advisory action dated
February 14, 2000, Paper No. 23) has vacated the supplemental
answer mailed August 10, 1999 (Paper No. 21), we have not
considered the arguments advanced therein in deciding the
appeal.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007