Appeal No. 95-1599
Application 08/062,492
Claims 8 through 13 and 19 through 32 stand rejected under
the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 as being indefinite for
failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the
subject matter which appellants regard as the invention.
Claims 8 through 13 and 19 through 32 stand rejected under
the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 as being based upon a non-
enabling disclosure.
Claims 8 through 13 and 19 through 32 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Leblang.
Reference is made to the briefs and the answer for the
respective positions of the appellants and the examiner.
OPINION
Upon careful review of the disclosed and claimed invention,
we find that claims 8 through 13 and 19 through 32 are definite,
are based upon an enabling disclosure, and are patentable over
the applied prior art. Accordingly, all of the rejections are
reversed.
Turning first to the indefiniteness rejection of claims
8 through 13 and 19 through 32, the examiner finds (Answer, page
3) problems with respect to precisely what functions are being
performed by the version abstract means and the configuration
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007