Appeal No. 2001-0611
Application No. 08/742,733
Claims 11-23, 43 and 44 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite.
Claims 11-17, 43 and 44 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Moumene in view of Bokros.
Claims 26-33 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Goble.
Claims 34-37 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Goble in view of Bokros.
Claims 38-42 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Goble in view of Moumene.
Claims 18-23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Goble in view of Moumene and Bokros.
Reference is made to appellants’ main and reply briefs
(Paper Nos. 14 and 16) and to the second final rejection and
examiner’s answer (Paper Nos. 11 and 15) for the respective
positions of appellants and the examiner regarding the merits of
these rejections.
The § 112, second paragraph, rejection
Considering first the rejection of claims 11-23, 43 and 44
under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, the examiner maintains
that the claims are indefinite because the term “the surface”
(claim 11, line 7; claim 43, line 5; claim 44, line 6) lacks a
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007