Appeal No. 95-3317
Application No. 07/937,522
noted above.
Thus, we cannot sustain the examiner's rejections of
appealed claims 12, 13, 19, 20, 26 and 27 under 35 U.S.C. §
103 as being unpatentable over Nitzsche in view of Vohrer.
Furthermore, we have considered the additional teachings of
Cavanagh as applied in the rejection of appealed claims 14
through 18 and 21 through 25, but we find nothing therein to
overcome the deficiencies of the combined teachings of
Nitzsche and Vohrer. Therefore, we also cannot sustain the
examiner's rejection of these claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Since we have concluded that the examiner has not established
a prima facie case of obviousness with respect to the claims
on appeal, we have not found it necessary to consider the
evidence of non-obviousness presented in the declaration of
James W. Kenney, appellant.
We make the following new rejection pursuant to the
provisions of 37 CFR § 1.196(b).
Claims 26 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to
particularly point out and distinctly claim the invention.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007