Appeal No.1997-0898
Application No. 08/281,879
Murdock et al. (Murdock) 5,418,864 May
23,
1995
(filed Jul. 11, 1994)
Claims 2-18 stand finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph, as being indefinite for failure to
particularly point out and distinctly claim the invention.
Claims 2-18 stand further finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103. As evidence of obviousness, the Examiner offers Murdock in
view of the admitted prior art (hereinafter APA) with respect to
claims 2, 3, 5-8, 10, 12-14, 16, and 17, and adds Rao to the
basic combination with respect to claims 4, 9, 11, 15, and 18.
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the
Examiner, reference is made to the Briefs and Answer for the2
respective details.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the subject matter on appeal,
the rejections advanced by the Examiner, the arguments in
support of the rejections and the evidence of obviousness relied
2The Appeal Brief was filed June 21, 1996 (Paper no. 18). In response
to the Examiner’s Answer dated September 6, 1996 (Paper No. 19), a Reply Brief
was filed November 12, 1996 (Paper No. 21) , which was acknowledged and
entered by the Examiner as indicated in the communication dated January 31,
1997 (Paper No. 22).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007