Appeal No. 95-3424
Application 08/143,598
Schatz 5,286,456 Feb. 15, 1994
(filed Sep. 24, 1992)
The following rejections are before us for consideration:
I. Claims 1-8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, for indefiniteness.
II. Claims 1-4 and 6-8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 for obviousness in view of
Schatz alone or, alternatively, in view of Partridge taken in combination with Schatz.2
III. Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 for obviousness in view of either Schatz
alone, or in view of the combination of Partridge with Schatz, as applied to claims 1-4 and 6-8, and
further in view of Bajek or Hachmuth.
We reverse the 35 U.S.C. § 112 rejection essentially for the reasons given in appellants' brief.
However, we shall sustain each of the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections essentially for the reasons set forth in
the examiner's answer.
As for the 35 U.S.C. § 112 rejection, since we are in substantial agreement with appellants'
position, we adopt that position as our own. For emphasis, we disagree with the examiner's conclusion
that it is unclear as to whether the "hydrogen fluoride utilizing means" is a positively recited element of
the claim. In our view, it is clear that the HF utilizing means is not recited as an element of the claimed
2We note for the record that the examiner erroneously included a canceled claim, claim 9, in
listing the claims rejected over the combination of Partridge and Schatz.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007