Appeal No. 94-2901
Application No. 07/837,666
The issues presented for review are: (1) whether the
examiner erred in rejecting claim 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over the combined disclosures of Orelski,
Atkinson, and the acknowledged prior art in the specification
(paragraph bridging pages 5 and 6) "and, if necessary,"
further taken in view of Jenness or Brockmann; (2) whether the
examiner erred in rejecting claims 18 through 22 under
35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as failing to particularly
point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which
applicant regards as his invention; (3) whether the examiner
erred in rejecting claims 20 through 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
first paragraph, as based on an original specification which
does not provide adequate written descriptive support for the
invention now claimed; and (4) whether the examiner erred in
rejecting claims 18 through 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph, as based on a non-enabling disclosure.
DELIBERATIONS
Our deliberations in this matter have included evaluation
and review of the following materials: (1) the instant
specification, including Figures 1, 2 and 3, and all of the
claims on appeal; (2) applicant's Appeal Brief (Paper No. 31),
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007