Appeal 2007-1463 Page 4
Application 10/083,492
The claims are rejected as follows:
• Claims 35-38, 40, and 41are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §112, first paragraph, as
failing to comply with the written description requirement;
• Claims 6, 38, and 41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §112, second and sixth
paragraphs, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly
claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention; and,
• Claims 1-4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 13, 16-18, 23-25, 28-30, 35-38, 40, and 41are rejected
under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Keller (US Patent 5,909,893)
in view of Vitali (US Patent 5,380,031).
We AFFIRM.
Appellants, in the Appeal Brief4, argue the claims in accordance with the
following groups:
• claims 35-38, 40, and 41 with respect to the rejection under the first
paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 (Br. 6-11);
• claims 6, 38, and 41 with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. §112,
second and sixth paragraphs (Br. 11-13); and,
• with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. §103(a)5,
4 Our decision will make reference to Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“Br.,” filed Sep.
17, 2004 and the Examiner’s Answer (“Answer,” mailed Nov. 22, 2005).
5 Although the Brief (p. 6) states that “claims 1 and 3 can be considered to stand or
fall together, and claims 7, 9, 13, 16, 17, 24, 25, 29, 30 can be considered to stand
or fall together”, this statement does not cover all the claims rejected and does not
comport with the claim groupings as argued later in the Brief.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013