Appeal No. 2002-1250 Page 3
Application No. 09/200,057
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6 to 9, 18 and 19 stand rejected under 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.2
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6 to 9, 18 and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Ryan in view of Mitchell and Horn.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6 to 9, 18 and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Romero in view of Mech Site, Horn and Rife.
Claims 1, 3 and 4 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Ashinoff in view of Romero and Mech Site.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellant regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the fifth
Office action (Paper No. 16, mailed February 27, 2001) and the answer (Paper No. 19,
mailed July 5, 2001) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the rejections,
2 It appears to us that dependent claims 3, 4 and 6 to 9 were intended to be included in this
rejection as in the rejection under the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007