Appeal No. 96-0877
Application 08/123,639
2. Claims 2, 3 and 9 stand rejected under the second
paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 as being indefinite for failing
to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject
matter which appellant regards as his invention.
3. Claims 1 through 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103 as being unpatentable over Carey.
Considering first the rejection under the first paragraph
of § 112, the examiner states that ?the specification, as
originally filed, does not provide support for the invention
as is now claimed? (final office action, Paper No. 4, page 2).
In addition, he states that ?[t]he specification also fails to
provide an adequate written description of the invention and
fails to adequately teach how to make and/or use the
invention? (final office action, Paper No. 4, page 2).
As we understand the examiner’s position as quoted supra
and as set forth in greater detail in the final office action
(Paper No. 4), he concludes that the appealed claims are based
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007