Appeal No. 95-1747
Application 08/047,994
Claims 9 through 18 stand additionally rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Gibilisco.
Rather than reiterate the examiner's full statement
of the above-noted rejections and the conflicting viewpoints
advanced by the examiner and appellant regarding those
rejections, we make reference to the answer (Paper No. 9, mailed
August 5, 1994) for the examiner's reasoning in support of the
rejections and to the appeal brief (Paper No. 7, filed June 9,
1994) for appellant's arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to appellant's specification and claims, to
the applied prior art Gibilisco reference, and to the respective
positions articulated by appellant and the examiner. As a con-
sequence of our review, we have made the determinations which
follow.
Looking first to the examiner's rejection of the
appealed claims under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, we note
that it is well settled that claims in an application must define
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007