Appeal No. 95-0730
Application 08/068,575
material treatment facilities . . .”
A copy of the appealed claims is appended to appellants’
brief.
The following references are relied upon by the examiner as
evidence of obviousness in support of his rejections under 35
U.S.C. § 103:
Valiga et al. (Valiga) 4,352,601 Oct. 05, 1982
Muller et al. (Muller) 4,383,920 May 17, 1983
Katz 4,838,733 Jun. 13, 1989
Heintzelman et al. (Heintzelman) 5,030,033 Jul. 09, 1991
Silinski et al. (Silinski) 5,102,503 Apr. 07, 1992
(Filed Aug. 04, 1989)
Appealed claims 1 through 3, 9 through 12, 16, 17, 19
through 24, 47, 49, 51 and 53 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Silinski in view of Muller and
Katz, and appealed claims 4 through 7 and 48 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Silinski in view of
Muller, Katz, Valiga and Heintzelman. Appealed claims 1 through
7, 9 through 12, 16, 17, 19 through 24, 47 through 49, 51 and 53
additionally 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.
With regard to the rejection of the appealed claims under
the second paragraph of § 112, the examiner’s difficulty with the
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007