Ex parte LYLES et al. - Page 4




          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