Appeal No. 94-4061
Application 07/659,683
THE REJECTIONS
Claims 3-7, 9, 12, 13, 15 and 16 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 applicant regards as the invention"
(Examiner's Answer, page 3). Claims 3-7, 9, 12, 13, 15 and 16
stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Owens (Examiner's Answer, page 4). Claims 3-7, 9, 12, 13, 15 and
16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Gercekci and Proto (Examiner's Answer, page 5).
Rather than reiterate the examiner's full statement of
the above-noted rejections and the conflicting viewpoints
advanced by the appellant and the examiner regarding those
rejections, we make reference to the examiner's answer (Paper No.
15) and the appellant's brief (Paper No. 14) and reply brief
(Paper No. 16) for the full exposition thereof.
OPINION
In reaching our conclusions on the issues raised in
this appeal, we have carefully considered appellant's
specification, the claims, the applicable law, the applied
references and the respective viewpoints advanced by the
appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of our review, we
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007