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 4Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007