Appeal No. 95-4486 Page 3
Application No. 08/158,713
Claims 9 and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Kato in view of Hoying and Schubert.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by
the examiner and the appellants regarding the above-noted
rejections, we make reference to the examiner's answer (Paper No.
24, mailed April 13, 1995) for the examiner's complete reasoning
in support of the rejections, and to the appellants' brief (Paper
No. 22, filed January 12, 1995) and reply brief (Paper No. 25,
filed May 4, 1995) for the appellants' arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to the appellants' specification and
claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellants and the
examiner. As a consequence of our review, we make the
determinations which follow.
The indefiniteness issue
We will not sustain the examiner's rejection of claims 6
through 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007