Appeal No. 96-1692
Application 08/156,811
Claims 1 through 5, 20 and 21 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 appellants regard as their invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 20 and 21 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being clearly anticipated by Gardner.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 5, 20 and 21 stand rejected under
35 § U.S.C. 102(b) as being clearly anticipated by either of
Westmont or Lanius.
Rather than reiterate the examiner's full explanation
of the above-noted rejections and the conflicting viewpoints
advanced by the examiner and appellants regarding those
rejections, we make reference to the examiner's answer (Paper No.
12, mailed August 28, 1995) and the supplemental examiner's
answer (Paper No. 14, mailed October 11, 1995) for the examiner's
reasoning in support of the rejections, and to appellants'
brief (Paper No. 11, filed July 19, 1995) and reply brief
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007