Appeal No. 1997-0897
Application No. 08/227,992 Page 3
Claims 1-5, 12-15, 20-23, and 25-27 stand rejected, and the
specification stands objected to under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph, on the basis that the specification as originally
filed does not provide support for the invention as now claimed2.
Claims 1-5, 12-15, 20-23, and 25-27 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph as being indefinite.
Claims 12-15, 23, and 25-273 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Koch and the admitted prior art.
Claims 1-5 and 20-22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Rhodes and the admitted prior art.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by
the examiner and appellants regarding the above-noted rejections,
we make reference to the examiner's answer (Paper No. 29, mailed
April 17, 1996) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support
of the rejections, and to appellant's brief4 (Paper No. 28, filed
January 11, 1996) and reply brief (Paper No. 30, filed June 17,
1996) for appellants’ arguments thereagainst. Only those
2 We observe that the examiner has objected to the specification under
35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph. It is unclear from the record why the
objection was not made under 35 U.S.C. § 132. See MPEP § 2163.06
(Eight Edition, August 2001).
3 The examiner's answer additionally lists claims 19 and 24. However,
these claims have been canceled (Paper No. 19, mailed November 22, 1994).
4 Supplemental brief.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007