Appeal No. 95-2111
Application 07/771,173
THE REJECTIONS
Claims 1-12 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 applicants regard as the invention.
Claims 1-12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
first paragraph, as relying on a specification which fails to
adequately teach how to make and use the invention i.e.,
failing to provide an enabling disclosure.
Claims 1 and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
102(b) as being anticipated by Sinofsky.
Claims 1 and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
102(b) as being anticipated by Vassiliadis.
Claims 1-3 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
as being anticipated by Davies.2
Claims 4-7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Davies in view of Symonds.
2The rejection of claims 5 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
as anticipated by Davies made in the Final Rejection (Paper
No. 4) was not repeated in the examiner’s answer and thus, we
assume the rejection as to these claims has been withdrawn by
the examiner. Ex parte Emm, 118 USPQ 180, 181 (Bd.App. 1957).
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007