Appeal No. 95-2503
Application No. 08/024,883
“independent” which is not supported by the specification as
originally filed and failing to particularly point out and
distinctly claim the subject matter applicant regards as the
invention.
Claims 1 through 8 and 30 through 43 stand further
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103. As evidence of obviousness,
the examiner cites Jain and Toyoshima with regard to claims 1
through 4, 6, 30 through 35, 42 and 43, adding Mori, Furuhata,
Lehrer, Nishizawa and Liou to this combination with regard to
claims 5, 7, 8 and 36 through 41.3
Reference is made to the briefs and answers for the
respective positions of appellant and the examiner.
OPINION
Turning first to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
first and second paragraphs, while we sympathize with the
3It appears that the examiner does not employ the
teachings of all these references for each of the claims. For
example, it appears that only Mori is employed, together with
Jain and Toyoshima, to reject claim 5 but the examiner has
improperly lumped all seven references together in order to
reject claim 5. When reciting a statement of rejection, the
examiner should include only those references necessary for
the rejection. In accordance with the examiner’s reasoning in
support of the rejections, it would appear that each, or some,
of claims 5, 7, 8 and 36 through 41 are, in fact, rejected
under grounds of rejection that differ from claim to claim.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007