Appeal No. 95-0423
Application 07/696,859
(c) claims 1, 16, 20, 28, 29, 32 and 43-48 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Ritch; and
(d) claims 17-19, 25, 27 and 31 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Ritch.2
The rejections are explained on pages 3-5 of the answer.
Appellant’s argument is set forth on pages 6-17 of the
brief. In addition, appellant relies on declarations
submitted May 8, 1991 (Prywes I) and October 12, 1993 (Prywes
II).
The 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, rejection
We shall not sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, rejection of claim 59.
The basis of this rejection is the examiner’s belief that
claim 59 is vague and indefinite because the terminology “the
2The examiner appears to have inadvertently included
claim 26 in the statement of this rejection on page 5 of the
answer. In this regard, see the statement of the rejection of
claims under § 103 based on Ritch as set forth on page 5 of
the final rejection and on page 4 of the office action dated
May 20, 1993, wherein claim 26 is not listed. See also page 2
of the answer, last two lines, under the heading “Grouping of
claims” wherein claim 26 is not listed among the claims
rejected under
§ 103. Accordingly, we have not included claim 26 in our
restatement of this rejection.
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007